Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEMBRIDGE HARBOUR)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act 1861, relating to Bembridge Harbour, presented by Mr. Ernest Marples; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER HARBOUR)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act 1861, relating to Gloucester Harbour, presented by Mr. Ernest Marples; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT))

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act 1861, relating to Yarmouth (Isle of Wight), presented by Mr. Ernest Marples; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Rights of Way

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to ensure that applications for the stopping up of rights of way under Section 153 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, are made prior to development

being carried out on the land over which such rights of way run.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Planning permission of itself confers no right to obstruct a highway. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is about to reaffirm this in a circular to local authorities and to suggest to them that they should warn applicants of this point when granting permission. I shall continue to issue similar warnings of the need to refrain from creating any premature obstruction as soon as any inquiry about stopping up or diversion reaches my Department.

Mr. Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will not he agree that this Question discloses that there has been something of an administrative gap, which I am gratified to feel has now been closed?

Mr. Marples: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that footpaths should be closed unilaterally without due regard to the law.

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will arrange to give as much publicity to his decisions under Section 153 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, where an order for the stopping up of a right of way is not made, as he now does in cases where it is.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir.

Local Authority Grants

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Transport what provision he is making to supplement the 1963–64 grants to local authorities to make good amounts underspent from the 1962–63 grants owing to restriction of work during the unfavourable weather in the first quarter of 1963, and to take account of the exceptional amount of road repairing required in the current year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): The first need is to determine what additional expenditure local authorities incurred last winter because of the exceptional weather. When their replies have been received my right hon. Friend will, as he has already said, consider what additional grants can be made this financial year.

Ashbourne Road, Derby (Speed Limit)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now impose the 40 m.p.h. speed limit on the Ashbourne Road from Kingsway to the Derby County Borough boundary, which was promised by his predecessor in 1958; and whether he is aware that since this promise was made there have been 37 accidents on this 1½-mile section of trunk road.

Mr. Marples: I made the necessary order on 9th May. It comes into operation on 13th June.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While expressing gratitude that the Minister has at long last made this order, may I ask whether, in view of the 37 accidents which have happened on this small stretch of road since the speed limit was first promised, he will now instruct his regional officer that the prevention of death and injury is of higher priority than allowing motorcar drivers to drive at a high speed in a place which is known to be dangerous?

Mr. Marples: I have, I think, given the right hon. Gentleman the answer he wanted. A speed limit is to be brought into force. I assure him that all the officers of my Department are conscious of the problem that is caused by accidents on the road.

Lay-bys

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make it illegal for vehicles travelling on clearways to make use of lay-bys situated on the opposite side of the road to that on which the vehicle is travelling.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. We hope that, as more lay-bys are provided, motorists will normally use those on the nearside, but I do not think we would be justified in making this compulsory at present.

Mr. Loveys: Would not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that, in districts where it is feasible to have lay-bys on both sides of a clearway, it is courting disaster to erect signs, as is the case on many clearways, with arrows inviting motorists to cross over fast oncoming

traffic to make use of a lay-by on the other side of the clearway?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, I appreciate that. That is why we are trying to provide more lay-bys on the roads. The prohibition of crossing the road might result in vehicles doing a U-turn to get in and to get out again, which would be no safer and no less disturbing to other traffic than the present system.

Yardley, Birmingham (Road Accidents)

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Minister of Transport how many road accidents occurred in the Yardley constituency of Birmingham during the last 12 months; and how these compare with those in the City of Birmingham as a whole.

Mr. Marples: The information is not readily available and could not be provided except after extensive research by the Birmingham Police. If the hon. Member has a particular point in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Cleaver: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of fatal accidents in the division have been attributed to the bad lighting and the dangerous conditions on the Coventry road?

Mr. Marples: I have not received any information about that. If my hon. Friend will let me have more details I will gladly look into them.

Road Accidents

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a comparative and comprehensive statement of figures showing the effect of speed on road accidents in general.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The evidence available does not lead to a simple and clear relationship between speed and accidents which could be illustrated by a statement of figures. The available data were, however, summarised and discussed in a paper by the Deputy Director of the Road Research Laboratory at an International Conference in 1960. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister not agree that the time is long overdue when he should make a really scientific attempt


to discover the ingredients and causes of the slaughter on the roads? What is he doing to find out whether speed plays an important part and is an important ingredient in that slaughter?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That is precisely what the paper to which I referred attempts to do. It is difficult to summarise it, but I would say this, that the risk of accidents occurring depends, of course, on many factors; the evidence does, however, suggest that in any given set of circumstances an increase of speed makes an accident more likely and also more severe.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does the Ministry of Transport still have a Road Safety Committee, and, if so, when did it last make a full report on the problem of preventing road accidents?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The Committee does still exist and meets continuously.

Mr. Noel-Baker: When did it last make a full report? Is it not time, in view of the vast increase in the number of motor cars which the Minister has warned us we are to expect, that it should give us a comprehensive picture of the problem and of the remedies it proposes?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I thought I had satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee keeps my right hon. Friend continuously advised on these events rather than producing major reports from time to time. I would also add, as it is only fair to point out, that accidents have recently, I am glad to say, gone down.

Parking Meters

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport why motorists are denied the use of residual time on parking meters.

Mr. Marples: The regulations governing this matter in London are based on the principle that each driver who parks his vehicle should pay a parking fee appropriate to the time he wants. The meters are, however, cumulative. Users buying less than the maximum period get the benefit of any residual time within the limit of the maximum, which is usually two hours.
However, I am considering whether the regulations should be changed.

Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this particular aspect of the regulations does cause a good deal of trouble and can be taken advantage of by the more tiresome type of parking meter attendant, and would he not consider that to alter the regulations in this respect would help to smooth matters a good deal?

Mr. Marples: Yes. There are a good many arguments for and against. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are taking this seriously and reconsidering it.

Mr. P. Williams: Has any off-street parking been provided at Westminster with the cash which has come from the meters?

Mr. Marples: Yes, in the City of Westminster a good deal has been provided, but it is more expensive off the street than on the street, and, oddly enough, is not being used to the full.

Signs

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has given further consideration to the possibility of using coloured signs to indicate left turn only and right turn only, respectively; and what decision he has reached.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: This is a matter which has been considered by the Worboys Committee on Traffic Signs, and I think we should await the publication of their report.

Mr. Shepherd: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how long it will be, because I think this is a very intelligent suggestion? [Laughter.] It is not mine, but I think it well worth a try.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The report has now been presented to my right hon. Friend. I cannot say exactly when it will be published, because this will depend on how long it will take to be printed.

Beaconsfield and Wycombe By-passes

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will construct that part of the Denham-Stoken-church motorway which will constitute


a by-pass of Beaconsfield so that it is open for traffic at approximately the same time as the Wycombe by-pass section.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: That will not be possible. The High Wycombe by-pass is planned to start next Spring. Its extension to Denham, by-passing Beaconsfield, was always conceived as being of lower priority than a by-pass of High Wycombe. It is in course of preparation, but it is bound to be some time before work could start.

Mr. Bell: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend realise that once the Wycombe by-pass is completed the amount of traffic on the A.40 will be increased by all those drivers who have hitherto gone to great trouble to avoid the experience of driving through Wycombe? Is he further aware that the western approach to Beaconsfield on the A.40 carries a very heavy burden of traffic and has a terrible accident record, with deaths and injuries totalling about twenty people per mile per year? Furthermore, does not he realise that, if there is an interval between completion of the Wycombe by-pass and the completion of the Beaconsfield by-pass, the effect on Beaconsfield on the A.40 approach to it will be quite lamentable?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Of course, we appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend, and there have been representations from the local authorities on this subject. But I am sure he will realise that it is a feature of many road improvements that they give rise to traffic problems at each end. It is impossible to complete every by-pass at the same time. We must deal first with those which are most urgent.

Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Roads Board

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to the proposal that a roads board should be created to be responsible for the planning and construction of the road network outside the main urban areas.

Mr. Marples: I am always ready to consider ways of improving the organisation that administers the road programme. But I am not aware of any evidence that such a change would be for the better.

Mr. Rodgers: Has the Minister read his own Hall Report in which serious criticisms are made of investment planning in transport? Would he not agree, in the light of that, that he should look again at the whole administration of the transport system with a view, in particular, to using a roads board to make sure that investment decisions are made the right way and that investment goes to the places where it is most needed?

Mr. Marples: That is another question. If we had a roads board, both the statutory processes for starting a new road and the investment control would still be the same as they now are.

Mr. Mellish: But as we go into the 'seventies, when a great deal more capital will be required for building new roads to deal with the tremendous increase in traffic, surely there should be some unified control? The suggestion of a roads board is not something to be pushed away, but something whose practicability should be seriously considered.

Mr. Marples: I have not pushed it away. I have said that I am always ready to consider ways of improving the organisation which administers the road programme. If I were convinced that such a board would do so, I would consider it most seriously.

Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to improve the road programme, is he not aware that there is one method? In view of the confusion which he has caused, has it never occurred to him that he might resign? That would help enormously.

Mr. Marples: That consideration had not occurred to me.

North Orbital Road

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport when Orders under Section 7 of the Highways Act, 1959, will be made regarding the North Orbital Road; and when it is proposed to construct it.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Between the Dartford/Purfleet Tunnel and A.13 the road is already being constructed and will shortly be completed. For the stretch between A.13 and A.11, my right hon. Friend hopes to publish a draft Section 7 Order in about a year's time. I am not yet able to say when the work will begin. For the remainder of the North Orbital Road, except between Hatfield and Watford, planning is at an early stage and I cannot say when draft Section 7 Orders are likely to be published. Between Hatfield and Watford, where the line of the North Orbital road follows existing roads, the route is being improved as opportunity offers.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that if the completion of this road could be prosecuted more vigorously and more rapidly, a good deal of expenditure on minor road improvements in the neighbourhood of Kelvedon Hatch and other parts of my constituency might be rendered unnecessary? Will he please give this work high priority in the national interest as well as that of my constituents?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We will certainly get on with it as fast as we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Driving Licences (Form D.L.1)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that Form D.L.1, the form for application for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, gives to the applicant the impression that to be able to read at a distance of 25 yards in good daylight, with glasses if worn, a motor car number plate containing six letters and figures is an adequate visual standard for driving, and that this standard does not exclude sufferers from double vision and other visual disorders dangerous for drivers; and what action he proposes to take to clarify the requirements stated on the form.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Question 15 on form D.L.1 requires an applicant to declare any disability, other than those specifically mentioned in questions Nos. 12 to 14, which might be a source of danger when driving. It would be diffi-

cult, in a form of this kind, to prescribe standards for double vision and other eyesight defects. Nevertheless, we will bear the hon. Member's point in mind.

Mr. Cronin: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman taking this rather lightheartedly? Is not he aware that there are large numbers of people driving cars who have double vision, night blindness and many other kinds of impaired vision, and that large numbers of people drive without wearing their glasses although they are half blind without them? Would it not be desirable to have an inquiry into the whole matter?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We have at present little or no direct evidence that defective vision is a major cause of road accidents. Nevertheless, it is proposed to examine whether the eyesight requirements for drivers need to be tightened up, and discussions are taking place with the medical profession on the standards needed.

Isle of Wight (Holiday Traffic)

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make an official visit to the Isle of Wight on a Saturday in July or August in order to study its transport problems in relation to holiday traffic.

Mr. Marples: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I cannot say at the moment whether I shall be able to do so this summer. I can assure him that I shall study carefully any problems affecting the island's holiday traffic that come before me.

Mr. Woodnutt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Ryde-Ventnor line, in particular, carries 2½ million people over the year, and that one can get a much better idea of the problems which will have to be faced if one actually goes to see them? When my right hon. Friend says that he cannot go this year, may I take that as an indication that the line will not be closed for several years in view of the enormity of the problem?

Mr. Marples: No, I cannot accept that as an explanation of what I said. I am, however, conscious of the problem. The sequence of events will be this. The railways will make formal proposals if they wish to close a particular line, and


if objections are made the area transport users' consultative committee will hear them and make a report to me. Users and local authorities which represent users can make objections. I assure my hon. Friend that these points will be fully examined at the time of the proposals.

Mr. Mellish: I am sure the Minister will agree that this Question raises the much wider issue of holiday traffic generally and not only in the Isle of Wight. Will he give an assurance that it will be borne in mind that in certain areas there is a tremendous demand for railway transport over six months of the year, whereas it is not so badly needed over the other six months?

Mr. Marples: I recognise that all the holiday resorts are a special problem and will have to be looked at individually in the light of the circumstances. I promise the House that I will consider the matter most carefully when the individual proposals come before me.

Galloway and South-West Scotland (Transport Needs)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will invite the Scottish Transport Council to carry out a study on the lines of the recent Highland Transport Inquiry into the transport needs of Galloway and South-West Scotland.

Mr. Marples: Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland nor I consider that this is necessary at this stage.

Mr. Brewis: As my right hon. Friend made an alarming statement in a recent debate that he intended to close down all the lines in this part of the world in any event, will he take this opportunity of giving an assurance that he will take into account not only hardship and unemployment, but also future economic developments in that area and in Northern Ireland, as well as strategic and other needs? Secondly, will he say that he will not allow any rail closures to be made without the prior full agreement of the Northern Irish Government on matters which affect Northern Ireland?

Mr. Marples: I cannot go as far as that, but certainly the considerations mentioned in the earlier part of my hon. Friend's helpful supplementary question

will be taken into account. Before any decision of any sort is reached affecting, say, the Stranraer-Larne service, I shall not only take those considerations into account but will consult my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary. There are adequate safeguards which must be applied at the right time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In considering the question of the Stranraer line, will the Minister bear in mind that the views of his hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) represent those of the overwhelming majority of people in the area? Is he aware that there will be no passenger railway stations in Galloway or in South Ayrshire and that we shall feel marooned and isolated as a result of these proposals?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member is often marooned and isolated, but I am glad that on this issue he is in coalition with my hon. Friend. I will take into account what has been said.

Milk Floats

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to introduce regulations to amend the present driving licence provisions for pedestrian-operated vehicles such as milk floats.

Mr. Marples: After consulting interested organisations, I have decided to modify my proposals. I now propose that all pedestrian controlled mechanically propelled vehicles of not more than 8 cwt. unladen weight shall cease to be treated as motor vehicles under the Road Traffic Acts. I have now made the regulations which have been laid before Parliament for approval. I must stress, however, that the regulations are experimental and that these vehicles will be brought back under control if they should prove dangerous.

Mrs. Castle: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for this very welcome though long delayed change in the regulations, may I ask for his assurance that the regulations he is proposing will cover the case of my constituent, Mr. David Crane, and his hand-operated milk float, on the basis of which case I first raised this matter?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's thanks. I would say that this does cover the case of David Crane, and I wish him well. I would, however, stress the importance of safety and point out that if, when the change has been tried out, it proves to be the cause of more accidents, it will have to be reviewed. That is the only rider I make.

Closure Proposals (North-West)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what correspondence he has received about the concern which exists in the north-western area about inadequate passenger services; what proposals he has received from municipal or other road services on this matter; what conclusions have been drawn from the Merseyside inquiry; and what action he will take on the North-Western Transport Users' Consultative Committee resolution, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My right hon. Friend has received no great volume of correspondence on this subject, and none from bus operators. He expects to receive a report on the Merseyside survey from the local authorities concerned later this year. He is considering how further studies as suggested by the North-Western Transport Users' Consultative Committee might best assist the study of long-term transport and planning questions in the Manchester conurbation. In any case, before taking decisions on railway passenger closure proposals in that area, the views expressed by the Committee will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask his right hon. Friend if he agrees to these points, that this is probably the greatest industrial area in the world and that the density of population there is greater than anywhere else? Is it not scandalous that the people are having to put up with this lack of co-ordination of transport? Has he seen the latest observations made by the chairman of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, that it will take at least two years to consider the objections already made to the Beeching proposals?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: While not accepting all the implications of the

latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I will put the questions he has asked me to my right hon. Friend, and I can at least assure him that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the importance of Merseyside.

Tractors (Direction Indicators)

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to make it compulsory for tractors when being driven on the road to be fitted with flashing indicators.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My right hon. Friend expects to lay new regulations revising the technical requirements for direction indicators in the near future. We wish to have some experience of how the new requirements work out in practice before making it compulsory for any vehicle to be fitted with such indicators, but the hon. Member's view will be taken into consideration at that stage.

Mr. Hilton: While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that in rural areas this is a particular problem? At the present time a tractor driver giving hand signals very often cannot be seen at all, especially when driving a tractor laden with straw or hay. Does he not agree that as youngsters of sixteen have been let loose to drive tractors on the roads for quite long distances now, it is important that a regulation of this sort should be introduced?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We quite agree with the points which the hon. Gentleman has made. None the less, we think it is better to make quite sure that we have the right kind of indicators before we start to make their fitting compulsory.

Mr. P. Browne: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the other point of view, that if a tractor is towing a trailer full of hay and straw the indicators will not be seen at all, and that probably the tractor driver's arms are a more reliable form of indicator than the type which it is suggested should be fitted to a tractor which is being knocked about across the country?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think that when the new regulations come out my hon. Friend will find that this point has been taken care of.

Buses, Central London

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport approximately how many buses are running in central London on weekdays at midday; and how this figure compares with 1950 and 1938.

Mr. Marples: I am informed that at present between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., 1,434 buses per hour run in the Central London area. Comparative figures for buses and trams for 1950 and 1938 were 2,176 and 2,458.

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this provides the sort of service Londoners need? Is he not aware that there are increasing delays at stopping places, that people often have to wait a very long time for a bus, and that a great many people who have not motorcars, private or official, depend on the buses? Will he do what he can about this?

Mr. Marples: The question of the number of buses in the central area of London is a matter of day-to-day management for the London Transport Board and not for me. However, I am bound to say that some of the short-term measures we have taken in London to speed up the traffic have assisted the London Transport Board, because in 1960–61 the London Transport lost mileage figure—that is, the difference between the scheduled bus miles and those run—was 18 per cont. down, which means that more than 500,000 miles were saved. So the measures that we have taken have assisted the buses considerably.

Mr. Mellish: In fairness to those operating buses in the central area of London, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, because of the congestion, it is virtually impossible to run scheduled services? Bus services are slower today than they were in 1914. What sort of conditions will there be in a few years' time?

Mr. Marples: The measures we have taken resulted in a considerable improvement in 1960–61.

Mr. J. Hall: Is it not the case that if buses and general public transport were much better this would encourage far more motorists to leave their cars at home?

Mr. Marples: That may be, but a private motorist is very greatly attached to his own car.

Driving Offences (Drunkenness)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to curb the increase in drunken driving; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: The Road Traffic Act, 1962, which received the Royal Assent last August, made important changes in the law relating to drink and driving. The main provisions were brought into operation on 20th December last year, but it is too early yet to judge how they will work out in practice. Until we can do so, it would be premature to consider further legislation. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that the Government will keep this matter under continuous review.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the recent passing of the Act, within the last eight weeks chief constables have expressed very grave concern at the mounting toll of drunken driving convictions? Is he aware that one outstanding chief constable has called for drastic action to curb this menace on the road? Will he assure us that the penalties laid down in the Act will at least be enforced?

Mr. Marples: It is not only a matter of enforcing the penalties laid down in the Act. Parts of the Act have not yet been brought into operation. For example, Section 5(4) provides that for a second or subsequent conviction within ten years of a previous conviction for driving under the influence of drink or drugs the penalty shall be obligatory disqualification for not less than three years. This provision will be brought in on 29th May and it would be premature at this stage to prejudge it.

Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to suspend the licence of every man who is convicted of driving a car while under the influence of drink? Is he not aware that a fine is easily paid, but that a man will have to take heed if he knows that his licence will be suspended if he is had up for drunken driving?

Mr. Marples: It is not a question of the Minister of Transport making these regulations. They were made by the House of Commons and Parliament itself. All I can do is to act within the framework of the authority which the House has given me.

Mr. Strauss: Is it fair that the Minister should shelter behind the 1962 Act when he was responsible for it and resisted proposals from this side of the House which asked for much sterner measures against drunken drivers?

Mr. Marples: That is less than fair of the right hon. Gentleman. The 1962 Act was virtually a compromise Measure with all hon. Members acting individually. I am bound by the will of the House and I cannot alter it myself.

Sir K. Thompson: On a point of order. In relation to the Question before the last, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what has happened to the system whereby Ministers have the courtesy to inform hon. Members that they are to answer later Questions with an earlier Question?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer about that. I heard the Minister announcing the numbers of the Questions which he was proposing to answer together.

Driving Licences

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that holders of driving licences should, for the purpose of convenient identification, have a personal photograph attached to the licence; and if he will make a statement.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. We consider that the present requirement for every licence holder to sign his licence in ink is adequate.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that recently a person was concerned in the production of a licence bearing a name similar to his own and that within a matter of a few hours he was involved in a serious accident which caused serious injury and that subsequent police inquiries revealed that the person named had no such licence? Does he not appreciate that if there had been a photograph on the licence identifying the real holder, the accident could have been avoided and that similar subsequent

occurrences could also be avoided? Is it not worth while having another look at this matter, especially when the practice is working well in other parts of the world?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Without studying the facts, I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member that the photograph would have made very much difference. It is the view of my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary that no greater safeguards need be provided than under the present requirements. Clearly, applicants would be put to much greater inconvenience.

Motor Coach Station, King's Cross

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that it is proposed to close the Motor Coach Station at King's Cross, London, on 30th September, 1963, that no alternative station is being provided, and that this will cause serious interference with the regular daily services by motor coach between London and East Anglia; and what steps he is taking to ensure that an alternative will be provided.

Mr. Marples: My Department, the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner and the Metropolitan Police are co-operating to see whether arrangements can be made for operators to pick up and set down passengers in the streets in the vicinity of King's Cross when the present Motor Coach Station is closed. The provision of more elaborate facilities is a matter for the operators themselves in the first instance.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people using these services from East Anglia are people who mostly live a long way from a railway station and that if the services are not convenient or are discontinued more motor cars will come into the Metropolis? Will he use his powers or his persuasion to see that in future development plans proper motor coach terminals are provided?

Mr. Marples: I shall bear that in mind, because it is important, but at the moment the Traffic Commissioner, in consultation with the Commissioner of Police, has to determine authorised picking-up points and the solution might involve waiting restrictions on other


vehicles. This is a complicated problem, but we will bear in mind what my right hon. and learned Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Hartlepools Docks

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Transport what reports have been made to him by the Docks Board regarding capital expenditure on the widening and improvements to the facilities of Hartlepools docks.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The Board has informed us that it is investigating a proposal to spend £750,000 on new coal shipping appliances.

Commander Kerans: In saying that I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I stress that early action is necessary to improve the port facilities in Hartlepool, where we still have very high unemployment? I trust that, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, my hon. and gallant Friend will do what he can to help to alleviate the financial desiderata concerned in this vital issue.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We appreciate that, and the Docks Board hopes to be in a position to seek my right hon. Friend's approval for the expenditure later this year. If so, the work should start in 1965.

Shipbuilding

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the unemployment position in the shipbuilding industry; and why he will not adopt the principle of scrap and build.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I cannot yet add to the answer I gave to a similar Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) last Wednesday. But I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement on the Government's attitude before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that a large number of vessels now afloat are near to being unseaworthy and are fit only for the scrap heap? Would it not be wiser to scrap these vessels now and

to give work to our men in the shipyards by building other ships in their place?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can only repeat what I said last week, and that is that the scrap and build scheme is not a simple, straightforward matter at all. There are serious disadvantages to it, and the position today is very different from what it was when we had a similar scheme between the wars.

Mr. P. Williams: While welcoming the intention of my hon. and gallant Friend and that of the Government to make public their decision before Whitsun—that is what I understand from the Answer—may I ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he can assure the House and the shipping and shipbuilding industries that it is not the intention of the Government to let the British shipping and shipbuilding industries wither away? Will he take account, while considering the interests of the shipbuilding industry, of the ship-owning industry as well?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We certainly appreciate the great importance to this country of the shipping and shipbuilding industries, and I think that perhaps we had better await the announcement when it comes.

Distress Signals and Life-saving Equipment

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Transport what further steps he will take to ensure that all sea-going craft carry distress signal flares and rescue equipment.

Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett: All seagoing craft, except pleasure yachts of less than 15 tons burden, must by statutory regulation carry distress signals and lifesaving equipment. I do not consider that further steps to ensure compliance with these regulations are needed.

Mr. Milne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this will cause some concern around our coasts, because an increasing number of craft are putting to sea during the holidays and other periods every year and an unnecessary strain and burden is being imposed on the many splendid voluntary workers who are called out to rescues following accidents? Will he look into the matter much more closely and extend the range of vessels needing the type of equipment referred to in the Question?

Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett: We are, of course, aware of the seriousness of the problem, but we do not think we would be justified in taking responsibility for the inspection of all the various types of craft because of the large and costly organisation which would be required. We think that the matter is best left to local initiative and to instruction and training, which is going forward.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the fact that a large number of sailing and other dinghies race a mile or two out from the coast, and that it would be quite impracticable for this type of craft to carry these heavy distress appliances?

Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett: Yes, Sir; I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend over that. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that pyrotechnic signals need a great deal of care in handling, and that we must be careful that while guarding against one danger we do not introduce another.

Scandinavian Business Men (Visit)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he had with the delegation of business men from Scandinavian countries who recently visited this country to discuss shipping and shipbuilding matters of common interest to those countries and the United Kingdom with a view to correlating those interests and expanding British shipping and shipbuilding trade.

Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett: I know of no such delegation.

Mr. Hughes: When will the Parliamentary Secretary emulate the constructive example of the Trades Union Congress in promoting international conversations at a high level with a view to increasing the trade, industry and commerce of this country and diminishing great unemployment, especially on the north-east coast of Scotland?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are always ready to consider anything which will help to bring orders to our shipyards.

Shipbuilding (Oil Tankers)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Transport if he will seek immediate

consultations with the Shell Oil Company to discuss the need to ensure that British shipyards shall have the opportunity to build oil vessels that that company may require.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I understand that Shell intend to build up to six large tankers and are seeking tenders from 15 shipyards, nine of which are British.

Mr. Wainwright: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman approached the Shell Oil Company to ensure that these ships are built in the shipyards of this country? Does he not appreciate that there are many shipyards where machinery is almost rusting because of lack of orders? Will he not do more than he is doing and have these consultations to make certain that the ships are built in this country?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We naturally hope that these ships will be built in this country, but we cannot force the company. It has already shown its interest, and it would not be appropriate to try to influence it any further. I remind the hon. Member that of the existing Shell fleet no less than 85 per cent. was built in this country.

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that some of our competitors, foreign countries, subsidise shipbuilding? Will he make sure that British yards do not suffer any disadvantage as a result of those subsidies on the Continent and elsewhere?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We are aware that some countries make direct subsidies and we are also aware that indirect assistance is given. I ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement which I said would be made before the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that nine British shipyard companies were interested in building these ships. Would he use his influence to see that the order is spread fairly among the shipbuilding companies of Britain?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: No, Sir. I cannot give that undertaking.

Mr. Rankin: Why not?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Private companies, as are the Government, are bound to place the orders at the yards which offer the best tenders.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Closure Proposals (West Midlands)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Transport if he will, in anticipation of formal proposals for the implementation of the Beeching Report in regard to the closing of Rugeley Town station, Alrewas stations and Lichfield Trent Valley High Level station, strengthen the West Midlands Transport Users' Consultative Committee by adding to the membership persons with expert knowledge of overspill future plans and requirements both as regards passenger and freight traffic.

Mr. Marples: The duty of the transport users consultative committee is to report to me on any hardship which it considers would be caused by a proposed closure of a passenger service or station. Before reaching my decision I shall take into account any other relevant factors. If in a particular case overspill plans were a significant factor, I would consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The consultative comittee has no power to consider proposals for freight service closures.

Mr. Snow: Since it appears fairly obvious that Dr. Beeching's secretariat has no knowledge of the Midlands overspill plan, which is a vast problem and is already in operation, would it not be profitable to see that the users' consultative committee at least is well informed before it makes its representations?

Mr. Marples: I assure the hon. Member that any overspill problem will be taken into account before a decision one way or the other is made.

Mrs. Castle: Can the Minister say why these consultative committees are not allowed to cover the freight aspects of the proposals? Is he not aware that I have sent him particulars of protests against the closure of the Mill Hill station in Blackburn, including protests by a local business man? How are the interests of business persons to be reflected in the consideration of these proposals?

Mr. Marples: I am bound by the Transport Act, 1962, which was passed

by this House and which lays down those provisions. All I can say is that the railways have been in touch with local business people regarding the freight services.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the Minister further aware that there are questions not only of overspill and freight, but those which concern areas with expanding coalfields and where new mines are being opened, as in the West Midlands and the North? Is he not aware that the problem of consultative committees and the question of freight is of paramount importance? Will he ensure that he is informed of any Coal Board developments in these areas before freight or passenger lines are closed?

Mr. Marples: It was about twelve months ago that I first said that the question of population overspill and of new industrial development would be taken into account. Government machinery was set up a considerable time ago so that these factors, as well as hardship to passengers and the provision of alternative services, would be considered.

Mr. Snow: In view of the nature of the Minister's reply, I give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Uneconomic Rail Services

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Minister of Transport what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on where the burden of subsidy should fall when uneconomic railway services are kept open on proof of hardship.

Mr. Marples: Where I do not consent to a proposal from the Railways Board for the closure of a passenger service, any consequent financial loss borne by the Board in respect of that service forms part of the revenue deficit which, under Section 22 of the Transport Act, 1962, may be met by the Exchequer.

Mr. Woodnutt: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I draw his attention to a recent statement of his, reported in a special article in the Sunday Times, in which he said that local interests would have to bear part of the burden? I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend can explain that a little


more. Has he in mind asking local authorities to bear part of the burden?

Mr. Marples: I do not know which particular reference my hon. Friend has in mind. All I have to say is that I cannot now commit myself to any undertaking that Exchequer assistance will be given. The great point is that each individual case should be looked at carefully and then we can see whether Exchequer assistance is needed.

Mr. Woodnutt: Can my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that, where cases of hardship are not proved, he will give local authorities or local interests an opportunity of taking over these lines themselves?

Mr. Marples: That is a matter in the first instance for discussion between the authorities concerned and the Railways Board. If any local authorities have proposals to make, I hope that they will immediately go to the Railways Board and start discussions.

Mr. Strauss: Has not the Minister previously suggested that local authorities might be asked to bear the burden of keeping certain lines open? Have the local authorities any power to subsidise British Railways in this way?

Mr. Marples: It is a question not only of British Railways but of alternative services. The point is that one cannot decide upon Exchequer assistance until each individual closure has been investigated.

Main Line Stations (Parking Facilities)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport if, before consenting to proposals for the closure of railway stations, he will ensure that car parking facilities will be increased at those main line stations which can expect more passengers as a result of the closures.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: As my right hon. Friend told the House on 29th April, we recognise the special problems of parking and travel which rail closures in urban areas may create. Similar problems may arise elsewhere. In considering proposed closures my right hon. Friend will take into account all relevant factors, including, where necessary, parking facilities. The Railways

Board is well aware of the importance of providing parking space to meet its passengers' needs.

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the hon. Member for Rutland, having been threatened with the extinction of his county, is now faced with the loss of all his railway stations? Will he bear in mind that those supposedly more efficient counties outside of Rutland have not got adequate parking facilities, and that this will really have to be looked at if we are to have extra car parking facilities and places for buses near the stations, if and when the new services are put on?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Yes, we do appreciate that, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that although my right hon. Friend has no direct powers to compel the Railways Board to provide parking places, in giving his consent to the closure of a station one of the conditions might well be the provision of parking places at an adjacent station.

Cheadle Hulme—Stoke-on-Trent Line

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what expenditure was authorised by him for the modernisation and electrification of the Cheadle Hulme—Stoke-on-Trent main line, for the resignalling between Cheadle Hulme—Stoke-on-Trent line, and for the modernisation of the station at Stoke-on-Trent, respectively; what is the total cost of this works programme; and on what date it will be completed.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I understand that, within the estimated cost of £175 million for the London Midland Electrification Scheme approved by my right hon. Friend as a whole; the British Railways Board have authorised expenditure for the modernisation and electrification of the Cheadle Hulme—Stoke-on-Trent section of the line at a total cost of £6·1 million, including £1·2 million for resignalling and telecommunications improvements. The works are expected to be completed by the end of 1966. With regard to Stoke-on-Trent Station, I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and others on 6th March last.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform his right hon.


Friend that there is great appreciation among millions of people living in the vicinity of the line of the fact that it will be modernised and electrified? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to give instructions to his principal officers that some drive and enterprise shall be put into this so that the people can benefit from this service as soon as possible?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be most gratified at the hon. Gentleman's approval, and I can also assure him that the maximum drive is being put into the project.

Mr. Swingler: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also invite his right hon. Friend to meet the Members of Parliament representing north Stafford-shire in the darkness of Stoke-on-Trent station to see whether he agrees that something ought to be done about it?

Mrs. Slater: And quickly.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I understand that the Railways Board has not yet finalised its plans for this station, but it is intended that it should be modernised to coincide with the introduction of the electric services on the line.

Mrs. Slater: But does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that in the meantime—and apparently it will be a number of years before this is done—the people who work there and use the station are to be condemned to use it in the shocking conditions which prevail—unless, of course, the hon. and gallant Gentleman can arrange for us to have another Royal visit, when we might get some improvements made?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: We have complete confidence in the judgment of the Railways Board in the phasing of the work. After all, 1966 is not all that far off.

Closure Proposals

Sir J. Maitland: asked the Minister of Transport at what precise stage and in what manner direct consultations will take place between his Department, local authorities and other interested parties when it is proposed by the Railways Board to close a railway service; and who will take the initiative in arranging such consultations.

Mr. Marples: I have already opened consultations with the local authority associations and other interested organisations upon the Railways Board's proposals as a whole.
When the Board gives formal notice of a particular passenger closure under Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, local authorities and other bodies representing users are free, if they wish, to lodge objections on hardship grounds with the area transport users consultative Committee, which then reports to me.
Local authorities or other responsible bodies are also free, once the Board have given formal notice, to make representations about aspects of a closure proposal other than hardship. I should find it helpful if these views were channelled through the Department with which the authorities normally deal on the subject concerned. I will also myself consult them if I feel that they can help over some aspect of a proposal before me.

Sir J. Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but does he not realise that if local authorities have to wait until the railways claim to close a line and then have to go through the usual channels of the transport users' consultative committee, there will be considerable waste of time and expense and also anxiety for a local authority over a very long period? In certain instances where local authorities think that they have an unassailable case, would not my right hon. Friend consider it at an earlier stage so that it might, as it were, be put out of the way, and thus save a great deal of anxiety?

Mr. Marples: I am bound by the Transport Act, 1962, which says that a formal proposal should come from the railways, and it should be advertised twice, and then, six weeks later, the transport users' consultative committee can listen to objections and then make a report to me. But I would tell my hon. and gallant Friend that there will be ample time for the local authorities to prepare their case and to make it before a closure is contemplated and approved.

Mr. Snow: Is the Minister saying that matters relating to freight cannot go through the transport users' consultative committee, but that individual interests


or industries must make their own representations? Would it not be better to have some form of co-ordination where an area is concerned?

Mr. Marples: The Act lays down that the transport users' consultative committee shall consider passenger service closures only and not matters relating to freight.

Mr. Mellish: Can the Minister give any indication when the first of the Beeching Plan proposals for closures will start to operate?

Mr. Marples: I am afraid that I cannot. It depends on the Railways Board and not on me.

Mr. Shepherd: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that local authorities will be provided with information about the finance of a line which is proposed to be closed, because it will be very difficult for them to form a real judgment about it without this?

Mr. Marples: That is the subject of another Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Strauss: As the Railways Board and the Beeching Report have already indicated the closures which are in mind, and which will, presumably, be followed up, would it not be wise for all the local authorities concerned immediately to take steps to prepare their case, if they feel they have a case, against a closure?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the local authorities will prepare their cases carefully and at leisure and present them at the appropriate moment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go all round the country on this Question. Mr. Vane, Question No. 27.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what plans Her Majesty's Government have for improving communications in South-West Durham if the Darlington-Crook, Darlington-Barnard Castle and Middleton-in-Teesdale railway passenger services are closed; and

(2) what estimate he has made of the cost of improving roads in South-West Durham to cater for the increased traffic

that would be caused by the proposed railway closures.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has made for improving road communications with Lyme Regis and Bridport, in view of the proposed closure of their respective railway branch lines and in view of the need to reduce to a minimum the extent to which the trade of these two seaside towns may suffer.

Sir K. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport what consultations he has had with those concerned about the road traffic problems likely to arise when the Railways Board's proposals to close the Liverpool-Southport railway are put into effect.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made on machinery to strengthen and modify roads where necessary following the acceptance of the Beeching Report.

Mr. Marples: My divisional road engineers have already made a first examination of the Beeching Report from the point of view of roads and road traffic. I shall, where necessary, obtain their views and those of the local highway authorities about the effects, if any, on the roads of the Railways Board's individual proposals to withdraw passenger services. But each of those proposals will be considered in the first place by the Transport Users Consultative Committee who will report to me on hardship and alternative services. My decision will take into account all relevant factors, including the cost of any road improvements that might be needed.

Mr. Boyden: That means that the right hon. Gentleman has no plans and no ideas at all, and that his actions are as irrelevant as his actions at Burtree last week. How does he reconcile the actions of the President of the Board of Trade in trying to bring industry to this area with his own efforts in trying to stop it?

Mr. Marples: The divisional road engineers have made a survey of the general proposals of the plan. They now propose to make a detailed survey when each individual proposal is put forward.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: At what stage will my right hon. Friend publish these proposals so that local people will have some idea as to what alternative, if any, is provided? That is what is important to them.

Mr. Marples: The proposals would be published in the first instance by the Railways Board itself. They will be advertised twice, and six weeks later the transport users' consultative committees will begin investigation.

Mr. Pentland: Would it not be stupid to close down any services in the North-East before Lord Hailsham has produced his long-term plan for the area? What recent consultations has the Minister had with Lord Hailsham in order to compare the noble Lord's recommendations with those of Dr. Beeching's plan?

Mr. Marples: If it proves necessary, on examination of an individual proposal, that a line should not be closed—and my noble Friend makes his point of view known—it will not be closed. But the main point is that I am in continuous consultation with Lord Hailsham.

Closure Proposals (Alternative Services)

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give details of the advice he has received from the Transport Holding Company, the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Association and the owners of municipal bus services as to their ability to replace passenger train services in England and Wales with adequate alternative bus services in the event of the Beeching proposals as to rail closures being carried out.

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give details of the advice he received from the Scottish Omnibus Group, the Tilling Group, the British Electric Transport, the Passenger Vehicle Operators' Association and the owners of municipal omnibuses as to their ability to replace closed railway passenger services by adequate omnibus services in the event of the implementation of the Beeching Report.

Mr. Marples: When I met representatives of all the main groups in the bus industry in early April, they assured me of their fullest co-operation in working out arrangements to provide new or

strengthened bus services to meet passenger needs when railway services are withdrawn. They told me that, while particular local cases might need a considerable effort, the information available did not suggest that the railway proposals would set them an impossible task nationally.

Mr. Elliott: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply. Has he not been further encouraged by the announcement today by the chairman of the Public Transport Association, who believes that he can provide in practically every case a comparable service? Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the frequency of the new bus services compared with train services, and also some idea of comparative costs?

Mr. Marples: The statement today was most encouraging. On the question of alternative services provided by buses, there are a number of points which we have discussed with the bus operators and which should be borne in mind. These include the timing of the buses so that they coincide with trains, the number of additional buses needed, road-side shelters—which have not been often mentioned in this context—and the whole problem of luggage. I would not exclude the possibility of trailers behind buses for luggage if we find that the luggage cannot be carried in the buses themselves.

Mr. Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Bus Group put out a memorandum indicating that it could deal with luggage in Scotland? Have other companies given such an indication?

Mr. Marples: They were all quite confident that, one way or another, they would be able to solve the problem.

Mr. Strauss: When the Minister talks about adequate alternative services, does adequacy to him mean a schedule which will get passengers to their destinations in approximately the same time as by train? If the right hon. Gentleman is convinced that the substitution of buses for rail services will be adequate in that sense, he is the only person in this House who believes it.

Mr. Marples: A large number of considerations must be borne in mind, and


the question of adequacy will be one in the first place for the transport users' consultative committees.

Sir J. Maitland: How long will it take for the bus companies to get into a position to be able to satisfy these requirements? What is the length of time it takes to get a new bus, or will the present buses be used although they are not equipped to take luggage?

Mr. Marples: The bus companies have made inquiries and there will be no difficulty about the supply of new buses if and when they are needed. But I believe that all these considerations have been taken into account by the bus companies, which have first-class managements.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman estimate how many additional buses are to be put on our overcrowded roads?

Mr. Marples: Estimates based on the nationalised bus undertakings, which provide 80 to 90 per cent. of the stage carriage services in their areas, suggest that the number will be about 700.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

3.31 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): In the course of the debates held in both Houses on 28th March on Motions to take note of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on House of Lords Reform the Government undertook that, if the debates should show that the proposals of the Committee were generally acceptable to Parliament, they would introduce the necessary legislation during the lifetime of this Parliament in time to be effective at the next General Election. The Government also undertook to make a statement of their proposals before the Whitsun Recess.
The Government have given the most careful consideration to the opinions expressed in the course of those debates both here and in another place. In their view, the recommendations of the Committee are likely to be generally acceptable to both Houses and I can therefore, state that is it our intention to introduce legislation to give effect to them in time to take effect at the next General Election. A Bill will be introduced shortly, but if it is not practicable to secure its passage this Session the Government will reintroduce it at the beginning of the next.
The Government are prepared to accept, and incorporate in the Bill they will bring, forward, all the Committee's recommendations with the following exceptions on points of detail which I believe will command general support.
First, we believe the recommendation that a peer who has surrendered should be required to exhibit to the returning officer a certificate of his surrender, is not workable in practice and should be omitted.
Secondly, we propose to allow a candidate who succeeds to a peerage while he is standing for Parliament to proceed with the election and, if successful, to have the same period—a month—in which to decide whether to surrender as if he were a sitting Member.
Thirdly, it is proposed that, in calculating the period in which a person who succeeds to a peerage while a sitting Member of Parliament has to make up his mind whether to surrender that peerage, time should not run while Parliament is


not sitting nor for any period during which Mr. Speaker certifies that the Member is incapacitated from acting through illness or for some other reason.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when this matter was debated in the House we gave an undertaking that when this legislation was introduced we would facilitate its passage from this side of the House in every possible way, subject to the right that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) indicated on that occasion, that there are certain points on which we do not agree with the Joint Select Committee and on which we wish to table Amendments to test the feeling of the House without in any way holding up the general Bill?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the three points he mentioned, which are at variance with the Report of the Joint Select Committee, would appear, from what he said, to be reasonable to us? We want to consider them more carefully and to study the Bill when it is published, but, in principle, it would appear right to make these changes, all of which I think the right hon. Gentleman raised in his speech in the debate.

Mr. Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not raise all three points, but they were raised in the debate both here and in another place. Naturally, I understand that the Opposition, and, indeed, the whole House, would like to see the Bill as soon as possible, and I think that either just before, or just after, Whitsun we should be able to produce it.

Mr. Shinwell: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so "cagey" about the time factor? Is he not aware that the Session does not end at the end of July, but at the end of October or in November? Is he saying that we are to have a prolonged autumn Session, that the Bill will be introduced before the Summer Recess and be continued when we return, and that we are to meet for several weeks before Prorogation? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, or is this a political manœuvre? After all, why should we be kept in the dark about the date of the General Election?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman on the last point.
I think that I made it clear that we shall publish the Bill as soon as we can. We genuinely hope to have it this Session, but we can never be certain, because in many parts of legislation, for example, in relation to Commonwealth affairs, there are a number of Bills which, for constitutional reasons, we may want to take this Session. This is not completely clear yet, and so I cannot be absolutely specific, but I undertake to produce the Bill as soon as possible and I hope that Parliament will pass it this Session.

Mr. Wade: While it is true that the Report of the Select Committee was unanimous, I did not consider that it was nearly radical enough and said so at the time. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be unwise to rush this legislation through, and, if so, may we have an assurance that there will be adequate time to give it careful consideration?

Mr. Macleod: I certainly hope so. That is an added reason for publishing the Bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other place has now started working nights? Is there any connection between his statement and this event? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there will be a rush here as a result?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir, except that in considering whether we can take additional Bills into a programme we have to consider the amount of legislation that is passing not only through this House, but through another place, so to that extent at least the hon. Gentleman's question is very relevant.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to define what he means by "this Session"? Does he mean that the Session will end before the Summer Recess, or that it will be prolonged, as is normal, until the end of October or some time in November?

Mr. Macleod: Both those are covered by the phrase "this Session". In fact, last year there was no overspill, as it is commonly termed, and if that can be achieved then it is obviously preferable.

Mr. M. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has squared Lord Sandwich, and if so how?

Mr. Macleod: I have not had correspondence with my noble Friend on this matter. He put his views in The Times, and I thought that they were effectively answered in letters the next day.

CHIEF ENAHORO

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the proposed deportation of Chief Enahoro in breach of the undertaking given to this House by the Prime Minister on 26th March last.
I am told that the intention is to deport Chief Enahoro tonight, so nothing could be more urgent than that.
In my submission, the question of public importance is well settled. This House has always considered the liberty and life of an individual as a matter of importance. When the Prime Minister's honour is concerned, and the reliance that can be placed upon his undertaking, the question of importance does not, I submit, require argument.
As for a third point, that where the matter has previously been discussed upon the Adjournment it cannot be discussed again, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this case was first discussed in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill and then on a substantive Motion, so that it has not been discussed upon the Adjournment and it does not fall within that rule.
The Prime Minister's undertaking is set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 27th March, and is in the following terms:
The Chief will not be returned to Nigeria until there is a definite undertaking from the Nigerian Government that this charge, if it carries the death penalty, is withdrawn and that no other charge that could carry the death penalty is substituted, or until the interpretation placed on this point by the right hon. Gentleman is shown by lawyers to be incorrect. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.]
The important words are,
that no other charge that could carry the death penalty is substituted.
The Prime Minister returned to that point in the next debate, and said that it was unthinkable that such a charge could be preferred. Since then the Lord Chief Justice, in the Divisional Court, has

decided—and this was also the view taken in another place this morning—that this case being dealt with not under the Extradition Act, but under the Fugitive Offenders Act, there was no restriction whatever upon the propriety of the Nigerian Government's preferring additional charges, including charges carrying the death penalty.
The Lord Chief Justice said:
It was also said that there were affidavits on the way from Nigeria containing evidence to show that other charges"—
which could carry the death penalty—
would be preferred against the applicant and he asked for an adjournment so that he might prepare his arguments and have the further evidence before the Court. Before granting an adjournment, the Court had to know why it was needed and whether it would be of any avail. As far as this Court was concerned, the Nigerian Government were fully entitled to prefer what charges they liked. This was not a case under the Extradition Act, where the Court only granted extradition for the purposes of the charges actually preferred. The fact that in the present case other charges were being preferred could not affect the matter.
That is the position as far as the courts are concerned. The undertaking given by the Prime Minister to the House is the vital question. I am informed that evidence is on the way from Nigeria—although, as to the undertaking, I do not know that it is necessary even to say this—that additional charges which do carry the death penalty are being preferred, and will be preferred on the Chief's return. In those circumstances, in my submission the undertaking is clear, the breach is clear, and it is also clear that under the Fugitive Offenders Act there is a continuing discretion, and that it is within the power of the Home Secretary either to deport or not to deport this man.
In my submission, therefore, this case falls within the rule.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of considering a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the proposed deportation of Chief Enahoro in breach of an undertaking given to this House by the Prime Minister on 26th March last.
To show how my mind is running, I wish to indicate that I am not for the


moment concerned with the alleged undertaking, or with what its meaning is. I am concerned with the hon. and learned Member's assertion that he has information that it is the intention of the Nigerian Government to prefer charges which would carry the death penalty. I should give an opportunity to whatever Government representatives are present to express their views on that proposition, if any.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I have no information at all that there is any such intention on the part of the Nigerian Government to prefer any such charges. No such evidence has been drawn to the attention of myself or to the court in the very protracted proceedings that have taken place.

Mr. Speaker: I am greatly obliged to the hon. and learned Member. In the circumstances of the time permissible to me in this case, and in view of that which amounts to reasons clearly understandable, that the assertion of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is not denied, I think that the right course is to ask whether the hon. and learned Member has the leave of the House.

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), until Seven o'clock this evening.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 14th May].

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Clause 10.—(CHARGE OF INCOME TAX FOR 1963–64.)

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: I beg to move, in page 9, line 27, leave out "£2,000" and insert "£3,000".

Mr. Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment we can take the Amendment to Clause 11, page 9, line 31, to leave out "£2,000" and to insert "£3,000".

Mr. Stevens: I am obliged, Sir Robert.
The 1961 Finance Act gave effect to the intentions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)—as the Chancellor said in his Budget speech—to take steps the result of which would be effectively to raise the starting point of Surtax on earned income from £2,000 to £5,000. I supported that intention and those proposals; I thought that they were right. It is not without interest that, coincident with the first occasion upon which the lower Surtax bill in respect of those in receipt of earned income became payable, there were definite signs of an upsurge in the British economy, in trade and industry.
I recall that, in urging these proposals upon the Committee my right hon. and learned Friend suggested that they might have some incentive effect in the minds and thoughts of those responsible for the direction of British industry. What has happened since 1st January, 1963, certainly has not tended to vitiate the argument which he then advanced.
I supported those proposals. I thought that they were overdue, but, also, that they were not sufficiently embracing, for they excluded income commonly known as unearned income. I do not like the term "unearned income", I prefer to call it investment income, or savings income. The object of my Amendment is to make a small


improvement for those in receipt of unearned incomes. I advance two main reasons in support of my proposal.
In the 1956 Act provision was made whereby self-employed persons could charge for Income Tax, and also for Surtax purposes, premiums paid for pensions which would be payable to them when they retired. But when the pensions are paid to those people, they fall within the ambit of the 1961 Finance Act and no Surtax is payable in respect of them until they exceed £5,000 a year.
In 1956, there were a good many self-employed people—and here I must declare an interest—who were too old to take advantage of this provision. The amount of anal premium required for the remainder of their working lives, despite the tax advantage, was too high to make the thing an economic proposition. Consequently, there are people who have retired since 1956, people who were self-employed—and there will be such people in the years that lie ahead—who are unable to take advantage of what are commonly known as the Macmillan provisions.
They have had to save for their old age out of taxed income, and save year by year. When they come to retire they receive income, interest, dividends—whatever it may be—on the amount of their savings. That income comes to them not as earned income, as in the case of people in receipt of approved pensions, but as unearned income, and they pay Surtax on it. There are at present, and there will continue to be for many years, employed people in senior executive positions in organisations where there is no approved pension scheme. They, too, have to save for their old age, and they, too, when they retire and receive the interest or dividends on their savings will find the income from those savings is not regarded as earned income.
So there will be an increasing number of examples of the anomalous position which may arise when two people—it may be men or women—who are next-door neighbours retire and are in receipt of an income of £3,000 a year. One may have been in a pensionable job and the other have had to save out of taxed income. One will be paying no Surtax and the man next door will be paying

£112 10s. in Surtax. Yet both have lived the same kind of responsible hardworking life for the same period, That seems to me the sort of anomaly which should be put right.
It may be said that a large proportion of savings income comes from inherited wealth and, obviously, there is some truth in that. But I think that far and away the bulk of incomes of this kind come not from the investment of inherited wealth, but from the investment of life savings. In any case—here, I come to my second main reason for commending this Amendment to the Committee—even if the income does come from inherited wealth, surely some regard should be had for the fall in the purchasing power of the £, the fall in the value of money, since the £2,000 starting point for Surtax was first approved forty-one years ago.
In 1951, the Committee first accepted this principle in respect of Estate Duty. Without a Division, the Committee agreed to raise the starting point for death duty from £2,000 to £4,000 and the House agreed unanimously. Since then there has been a further increase in the starting point for death duty. I submit that what is sauce for the death duty goose is sauce also for the Surtax gander.
I think, also, that this figure of £2,000 is the only Income Tax allowance in the history of this country which has remained unchanged since it was originally introduced. I refer to an "Income Tax allowance" because, as hon. Members will know, in the Finance Act there is no such thing as "Surtax". There are only higher rates of Income Tax. I sometimes wonder whether I could get out of paying my own Surtax demand by suggesting that there is no such animal as a Surtax. But I think it true to say that it is the only tax figure which has remained unchanged for forty-one years. That is the second argument which I am advancing in support of the Amendment.
The suggested increase from £2,000 to £3,000 is, I submit, a modest one. The cost to the Exchequer would not be very great. If it were approved, it would, as it seems to me, bring a measure of justice to a body of people which has been left out in the cold for too long, and I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): I must be frank with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) and tell him that this Amendment cannot be accepted. I regret having to say that, for my hon. Friend has made an extremely powerful, eloquent and moving plea—as one would expect him to do. Indeed, when he referred to the fact that many people have not the advantage of a pensions scheme there must have been many hon. Members who listened with a good deal of sympathy to what he had to say.
The Amendment proposes to raise the starting point for Surtax for 1963–64 to £3,000, and we are discussing with it a second Amendment which would deal with the amount payable during the current year. The rates to be charged on the successive slices of surtaxable income above £3,000 would be left to Parliament to determine next year as Clause 10 leaves it to Parliament to determine next year the Surtax rates for slices of taxable income over £2,000.
In brief, the basic starting point for Surtax is £2,000. But there are a number of allowances to be deducted in computing surtaxable income which have the effect, at any rate so far as earned income is concerned, that Surtax is not due on an income below £5,001. Indeed, if the full allowances are attracted, the figure can be slightly higher. The basic starting point for Surtax on investment income remains at £2,000.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend called it investment income rather than unearned income. It is true there are people in the United Kingdom drawing income which it may be that they have not done much to earn. But that does not mean that their families are not among those people who had to save and work extraordinarily hard to provide the income. I think that the term "unearned income" which is applied to them, especially in cases where people have deprived themselves of certain things during their lives in order to save, is an unnecessarily sneering reference. I agree completely with what my hon. Friend had to say on that subject.
4.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend is right in pointing out that there are certain anomalies in this position. He made the suggestion earlier,

during our Budget debates, that this point should be attended to. I want him to know that that suggestion did not go unnoticed. It is also fair to point out that it would be quite wrong to suppose that nothing whatever has been done during the period of Conservative administration for persons in this category, for certain things have been done.
One improvement that they have obtained, in common with many other taxpayers, has been the reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax from 9s. 6d. to 7s. 9d., a reduction of about 18 per cent. Another is that some of them, especially those who are married, will have been helped by the point that the excess of the taxpayer's personal allowances over the basic single allowance now runs for Surtax. That was done in 1957. My hon. Friend suggests that although a certain amount may have been done, it is now time to do more.

Mr. Stevens: My hon. Friend is right in what he has just said, but the differentiation between investment incomes and earned incomes remains. People with earned incomes have had these Income Tax allowances increase in exactly the same way as those with investment incomes, so that, relatively speaking, the people about whom I am concerned are worse off.

Mr. du Cann: That is perfectly true and I acknowledge it. None the less, whatever else may have been done for other sections of the community, it is right to point out that something has been done for these people as well. My hon. Friend may say that what has been done is not enough. I am merely saying that something has been done and that it has been of some benefit. That is all I am claiming, and nothing mare.
My hon. Friend went on to discuss the changes made in Surtax in 1961. He said that it was decided, in the national interest at that time, that it was essential to give a clear preference to earned income. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) explained his reasons clearly at the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone and I, in common with many others, supported my right hon. and learned Friend strongly over that matter. Indeed, my hon. Friend said today that some very sensible and and desirable results had emanated from


that decision. I am certain that my hon. Friends, in general, were glad to see that decision taken, for it was a very much overdue reform.
My hon. Friend is today arguing that although something substantial was done for earned income, that throws the position in relation to investment income into starker relief. That is probably true. That is the difficulty in effecting any improvements, even if they are continuous over a period. The anomalies get thrown up all the more clearly.
I cannot accept the Amendment, at any rate as it stands, for one reason above all. As drafted, it would apply to all incomes, and not only to income from investments. It would not change the existing rules about the special earnings allowance for Surtax. It would raise the effective starting point for earned incomes to £6,000 instead of the present £5,000. Thus, the existing Surtax preference for earned income, about which my hon. Friend has complained, would remain.
I have shown why the Amendment is technically defective and would not affect the kind of improvements my hon. Friend wishes to achieve. But if that were not enough on its own, the cost of the change, based on the present Surtax rates, would be about £45 million in a full year; and even if my hon. Friend withdrew the Amendment and tabled a fresh one which would put right the defect I have explained, the cost of the proposal would still be £25 million in a full year.
The cost of the second Amendment this year would be about £18 million if it were put in order. In its present state it would cost £30 million. To accept the Amendment, therefore, would commit the Government to a considerable change in the incidence of Surtax for 1963–64. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, apart from the technical position, the cost alone completely rules out doing something of this sort. I am not suggesting that this is so for all time, but that it is so now for this reason; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed modifications in personal allowances this year—

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Before the hon. Member leaves that point, could he say what the Amendment would cost?

Mr. du Cann: I thought I had done that, but if I did not make the position clear I apologise to the Committee. I said that the cost of the first Amendment—that is, the one to Clause 10, page 9, line 27—would be £45 million in a full year, and that if it were amended to take account of the point I put in relation to its technical defect it would then cost about £25 million in a full year.
As I was saying, as part of the theme of the Budget this year my right hon. Friend has proposed modifications in personal allowances—we shall be discussing them shortly—which, including the increased allowances for National Insurance contributions, are costing £184 million in this financial year and £235 million in a full year. He has decided that by far the greatest part of the relief must be concentrated on the modest and middle range incomes. It is estimated that well over 90 per cent. of the full year cost will go to taxpayers below the Surtax level.
To give the further concession suggested by my hon. Friend—however sympathetic one may be to the general purposes of the Amendment—would, obviously, be very much out of context with the main theme of the Budget. That theme is, I think, entirely clear. It has seemed to me, listening to the debates so far and having taken part in some of them, that the theme of the Budget is very much welcomed by the House of Commons and the country in general and that it is regarded as a theme which should be supported. The suggestion to raise the Surtax starting point in the way my hon. Friend proposes, though perhaps attractive from many points of view, must plainly be out of the question in the sense that it runs entirely counter to the theme of the Budget, apart from the matter of cost.
Although I dare say that my hon. Friend will feel reluctant, I hope that he will not wish to press his Amendment, in view of my remarks.

Mr. Mitchison: I always wait to see, when an Amendment of this kind is before the Committee, whether it represents a serious division of opinion in the Tory Party or whether it is one of those fireworks which are let off in the course of the Finance Bill without the intention


of having much effect or doing much injury. I think that, on the whole, this is in the latter category; although we wait with interest to see whether it is on that footing or whether there is a serious division of opinion among hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) honestly and properly pointed out that the effect of the Amendment would be almost entirely in favour of those who had what he chose to call "investment incomes". He proceeded to tell us a tale about people who had saved money and were providing for their old age by some scheme or another.
The definition of "earned income" in the Income Tax Acts—and, after all, that is what we are considering now—includes, in broad terms, pensions and superannuation schemes; and the line is certainly not where he invited us to draw it. I therefore treat the Amendment as it is intended by its mover to do what it says, that is to say, to favour the Surtax payer who is in receipt of unearned income.
When we were discussing the 1961 concessions, we had to consider not only the case of the Surtax payer who, like Dr. Beeching, was enjoying an earned income well in excess of either £2,000 or £3,000, but also the equally frequent case—indeed, I think far more frequent case—of the man enjoying both unearned and earned income—or, if the hon. Gentleman prefers it, investment income. That is by far the commonest case.
When we analysed the £83 million concession that the Conservative Party thought fit, by that Budget, at that stage in the progress of the national economy, to concede to Surtax payers, we found that while, naturally, a great deal of it operated entirely in favour of the earned income element, there was also a very considerable proportion of the total concession—to the best of my recollection, about half of it—going to investment incomes because, the incomes being mixed arid a proportion being, as it were, exempted from Surtax at the bottom of the scale by the form of the 1961 concession, those who were receiving both an earned and unearned income found that the earned income received the concession directly, and the unearned income received it indirectly because it slipped, as

it were, lower down the scale, even into, or much nearer to, the exempted belt.
That was the effect of the 1961 concession—there is not the least doubt about it; it was freely admitted by the Treasury spokesman at the time, and the actual figures were given. While I am not concerned with the actual proportion—although, if the Economic Secretary would like to repeat it, I would like to hear it all over again; it will be a slightly different figure now—the fact remains that this £83 million went as much to the indirect benefit of investment income possessors as to earned income possessors. Those were the figures—

Mr. Stevens: The hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches are always of the greatest interest to me and I listen to him with great care and attention, but I most carefully restricted the incomes of which I was speaking to those that came to people who had retired from work. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to relate to that a speech which is at present concerned solely with incomes consisting partly of earned income and partly of investment income?

Mr. Mitchison: I prefer to keep my speech to the terms of the Amendment, which does not relate to superannuations, pensions or anything else, but simply to Surtax payers as a class, as he himself quite honestly explained. I am sorry that he should appear to be retracting from it now.
It would, in practice, benefit the holders of what he calls investment incomes and I call unearned incomes, because I prefer the language of the Income Tax Act, which calls certain incomes, including a number from superannuation schemes, and so on, earned incomes, and assumes, as I do, that for Income Tax purposes it is right and proper to call other incomes unearned incomes. I would rather take my language from the statutes than from the ideology of the Tory Party. It promotes clarity of thought in these matters.
I am accordingly pointing out, and I do not propose to stop pointing out, that the £83 million concession in the 1961 Finance Act inured at that moment in the progress of the national economy to the benefit of unearned income holders just as much as to the benefit of earned


income holders. I agree that, in form, the concession was given to the earned income holders, but the point was made perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman knows far too much about these things to be in any way ignorant about it. Therefore, what he now proposes is to give a little more money, by way of concession in taxation to a group of people who received a very substantial amount of the £83 million which a Tory Government thought fit to give them in the 1961 Act.
4.15 p.m.
That is the Amendment we are discussing. We are discussing it on a Bill which, on the whole, as the Economic Secretary pointed out, makes Income Tax concessions at the bottom of the scale—in favour of the married man with children, and so on—and, in so doing, follows, as we have pointed out on several occasions, the suggestions that we on this side have been making for many years; and, in particular, the very valuable suggestion about altering in favour of the small man in these circumstances the belt of reduced income relief.
That is the context in which we are considering the Amendment, which would involve a very substantial amount. I prefer to keep to what we are discussing, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what he puts forward in these matters. The cost would be £45 million—one of the major reliefs in the Budget. I should be interested if there were any volume of open support from hon. Members opposite in favour of such a proposal in such a Budget at such a time, when the rest of the Budget is devoted to measures which, rightly or wrongly, are intended to go in relief of unemployment and in relief of the development districts, where unemployment is specially prevalent.
Do hon. Members opposite intend to support £45 million going to this particular class of citizens instead of being used to extend even more the relief given, say, in respect of development districts or, say, in another direction which is omitted from the Budget? I mention it only shortly, because we shall return to it, but it is perfectly obvious that if we really want to help the people who do not even have to pay Income Tax because they have not enough income, let

alone become Surtax payers—who have never considered from their own point of view whether they should call the income they have not got investment income or unearned income—that help should be by way of some form of indirect tax relief.
We have put down Clauses on the Notice Paper—I only mention them, and obviously shall not deal with them now—which would have that effect; taking Purchase Tax, for instance, off the lowest scale of goods to which it has been made to apply since the 1955 election. That kind of thing must surely commend itself far more, not only to the hon. Member himself, when he thinks it over, but to all his hon. Friends who were heard to say "Hear, hear" at various points without, perhaps, fully considering what was the alternative to that which they were applauding, and which, I think, should commend itself to the Government far more than this proposal.
We shall hear what the Government say about that when we come to it, but if we are then to be told that we cannot afford any substantial Purchase Tax concessions, that we have done as much as possible already by way of personal reliefs and cannot meet any further cases, however hard they may be, it is quite obvious that the Government can hardly begin the day by accepting this Amendment. Indeed, a Government who had any courage in the matter and were confident of the united support of those sitting behind them, might have gone a little further than the Economic Secretary chose to go, and have said, as I say now, that, at this stage in the nation's economic fortunes, it verges on the wicked to put forward such a proposal.
This proposal is utterly monstrous. It is so riotously unfair to the majority of people who, in one form or another, would have to find the money for the concession, that I should have thought that not even the most brazen-faced member of the Conservative Party could have moved it in this Committee as anything but one of those fireworks that are not intended to do anybody any harm and which everyone knows are quite certain to be rejected not only by the Government but by every sensible Member of the Committee—and, of course, we are all sensible.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I am sorry, but not surprised, that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has rejected the Amendment. I am not surprised because of the figures which he gave of the cost in a full year. I should like to say a few words on this subject, because I think that we are getting into a dangerous situation in dividing even more gravely than formerly earned income from investment income; and I do not think that it needs a particularly brazen face to make the point. It is certainly not made on my part from any moral fervour on behalf of those who are enjoying an unearned or investment income. It is made simply because of a matter of administration.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) will remember the eloquent speeches which he made year after year about the amount of litigation in courts on whether certain benefits are income or capital. It is undoubtedly true that the courts are loaded with this sort of argument, by which people, quite naturally, try to maintain that certain benefits are capital increments when they are alive, but, of course, it is argued after they have died that it was income.
I fear that if we go further along the line of dividing earned income from investment income for the purposes of taxation we shall have a whole new series of shifts by the taxpayer, all sorts of dodges, some of them unmasked and some not, by which what purports to be earned income is, in fact, investment income and the courts and the Inland Revenue will be overloaded again with this sort of argument which brings the tax system and the courts of law into disrepute.
It may be said that hitherto the division between earned income and investment income has been well known to the Income Tax law for a long time and that there has not been this attempt by people to maintain that unearned income is earned income and that, therefore, my warning is out of place. But the point is that hitherto it had not been worth their while, because hitherto this division has been at a low level. It has not impacted on what I might call the litigating classes. However, when the level is at £5,000 it is worth while people rearranging their affairs and perhaps consulting the hon. Member for Gloucester

and others on how to do it, on how to cause the maximum litigation and the maximum worry to the Inland Revenue and the maximum disrepute to the legal system.
Although I realise that it cannot be done now, I hope that there will be no tendency in future on the part of the Treasury to increase this division between earned and unearned income, because if there is it will give accountants and lawyers another field day.

Mr. Mitchison: Do I conclude that the hon. and learned Member is in favour of taxing something which is now called capital and not income because the distinction is unreal?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That would go way outside the Amendment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) decided to intervene in the debate and to broaden the subject a little, because this important Amendment raises important matters of principle. I see the force of some of the hon. and learned Member's arguments, but associated with them is a danger. If they had been put to the then Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) in 1961, they must have been very damaging indeed of the spirit underlying that Budget, because if that Budget boasted of anything at all it was that it was right to make a differentiation between earned income and unearned or investment income.
If the hon. and learned Member now says that this has been a danger and that no sooner one starts it than one raises all sorts of difficulties and possibilities of litigation, and that we should be in greater difficulty with people pretending that unearned income is earned income as we are already with people pretending that what are really income payments are capital payments, this completely undermines the principle of making the distinction which was at the root of the 1961 Budget.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) complained unreasonably that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) had addressed his speech to


the effect of the Amendment and not to the effect of the hon. Member's speech. I thought that that was an unjustifiable complaint, but to try to make the hon. Member happy I will address this part of my speech to the effect of his speech, and, in particular, to the spurious case which he tried to deploy, though persuasively as he always does.
This was the case of somebody who was not able to take advantage of the 1956 provisions by engaging in a top-hat scheme, or whatever it might be, to provide for his old age and had to do so by means of straight savings out of income. The problem with which I understood the hon. Member was concerned was that of a man who was not interested in building up a great accretion of property to pass on to his children, but who had been forced to save out of income to provide a reasonable standard of living for himself in retirement. What we are concerned with is somebody who has reached the position of retirement and out of savings has an unearned income of £3,000 a year.
I can quite see that, in the case of some people earning substantial incomes, before they had the opportunities which are at present available it might have been difficult to save sufficient out of earned taxed income to provide an unearned income on retirement of that magnitude. But in the case of those who have reached that position at present, even without the Amendment, I should not have thought that they would be in much danger of financial hardship.
We are dealing with the position of a man towards the close of his life, who has retired at 60 or 65, and has an expectation of life of perhaps ten years on the average of fifteen years in exceptional cases and who has accumulated savings and is interested in using the accumulation to sustain his standard of living. We are not talking about the ability to pass on property. We are talking about the man who has accumulated enough to give an unearned income of £3,000. I say in all seriousness that somebody who has passed the age of 60 with that amount of capital is in a perfectly good position, by means of buying an annuity or a judicious diminution of capital, to look after himself perfectly adequately without the assistance of the Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Stevens: I think it will be in the recollection of the Committee that I did not make any suggestion of hardship. I simply raised the question of the anomaly as between one class of person who gets a Surtax benefit and another class who do not. I did not mention the question of hardship. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) is as adroit as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in putting up red herrings. The hon. Member will be aware that with an annuity of £3,000 a year there is no capital value to pass on to successors in title.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The capital portion of an annuity of £3,000 is not taxable and there would be no Surtax payable in any case, even under the present provision.

Mr. Jenkins: Powerful as both those interventions were, I had not brought my remarks to a close and there are one or two other points I wish still to make.
I certainly got the impression that the hon. Member for Langstone was dealing not merely with the narrow point of anomaly, but also with the real case of hardship. If that were not so, I do not know what the Economic Secretary—who is a past master at returning a soft answer from the Treasury Bench—was doing when he congratulated his hon. Friend and referred to the moving theme of his remarks. If he was dealing only with a small legal anomaly it would be most inappropriate and out of keeping for the hon. Member for Langstone to use moving expressions in reference to such a matter.
I am sure that the hon. Member will recognise that his Amendment goes very much wider and would mean a substantial reduction in taxation on property interest generally. It should be argued on that basis and not on the slightly spurious basis of a limited class of people who are not, I believe suffering hardship at all.
One could deduce an argument for saying that as £2,000 has remained at the lower limit on property incomes for over thirty years that in itself is an argument for making a change, but there are other considerations to be borne in mind. One could say that there is no particular reason why it should remain an immutable law of our society that property incomes


should continue to be taxed in the same way as other incomes have been taxed for the last forty years and that we should make adjustments. Secondly, we have to bear in mind the ease of maintaining property incomes at a particular time when with balanced and harsher taxation of property incomes in relation to monetary values it had become much easier to obtain very substantial property.
It may well be that the English landowning class is better off at present than at any time since the collapse of agricultural capital in the 1880s. These considerations should be set against the rather detailed considerations which the hon. Member for Langstone advanced.

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) for listening to what I said. We all know how difficult it is to draft an Amendment which means exactly what one has in mind. I think that my hon. Friend accepted that. The intention was to restrict the proposal to investment incomes. I entirely accept that on the ground of cost within the context of the Budget this Amendment cannot be accepted this year. I very much hope, however, that the Chancellor will bear in mind what I said at the end of my speech, that those with investment incomes of between £2,000 and £3,000 a year have been left in the cold. I hope that in the next Budget he will do something for them. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Crosland: It has been a tradition for some years past that on this Clause, or its equivalent, we should have a brief debate on some of the more fundamental principles of Income Tax. No doubt after the disarrangement of business today, the Chancellor will wish more ardently than ever that such a debate should be brief. I promise him that I shall be brief, but this is an occasion on which to discuss some of the principles of our income taxation.
This is useful because we have already seen this afternoon, and in the course of some of our debates yesterday, that there are still some myths and misconceptions about the place of Income Tax in our

taxation system, I wish to mention one or two of them and ask the Economic Secretary or the Financial Secretary to comment on them. One myth, which I think is less common than it was in years gone by, if only because of answers given from the Treasury Bench, we used to hear endlessly from hon. Members opposite. It was that the total weight of taxation in this country was so crushing and crippling that it was the main reason for slow economic growth, and so on.
That misconception has been completely destroyed by figures which have been given from the Treasury Bench and which were quoted in an excellent pamphlet which appeared recently. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has been given some free advertisement this afternoon, perhaps I may be allowed to give a litle free advertisement to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
I refer to a pamphlet, "Prospects for a Prosperous Society" by Bruce Millan. It contains some extremely interesting figures which prove once and for all—if it still needs to be proved that the suggestion that the total weight of taxation in this country far exceeds that of Germany and other countries on the Continent is completely without foundation.
That myth No. 1, the hoariest myth of the last ten years, has now been largely abandoned, but the second myth of which we hear a great deal in this kind of debate is that even though the total weight is not greater than that in the Six, nevertheless the balance between direct and indirect taxation is less favourable because in this country we bear a greater weight of Income Tax and a lesser weight in indirect taxation and that is one of the facts responsible for our slow growth. That argument will not stand up for a moment once one looks at the figures in detail. The argument is in any case based on a totally unsupported assumption that direct taxation at this level has a desperately disincentive effect on initiative, work and risk taking. This assumption has been repeated year after year with no support by any empirical evidence.
The only time that it was looked at in detail was when it was considered by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, presided over by that great spy catcher Lord Radcliffe,


some years ago. That Commission looked at the question of how the weight fell on the wage earner and also the higher income receiver. In both cases the Commission concluded that Income Tax at the level we then had—and it was higher than now—did not exercise a serious disincentive effect on iniaitive, capacity for work, risk taking and the rest.
I should have thought that the events of recent years were final evidence of this fact. This afternoon, the Economic Secretary took pride in the fact that the standard rate has been reduced in recent years from 9s. 6d. to 7s. 9d. This has certainly had no beneficial effect on the rate of growth, which was actually slower last year than it was at the beginning of the period. If one wanted more evidence one could find it in the fact that under the Surtax concessions of two years ago every middle executive in the country should now be working two hours extra as a result, yet our growth has actually gone dawn. It certainly is not going to increase this year on account of Surtax concessions, but because the Chancellor has made the more prudent move of injecting more demand into the economy.
It seems to me, therefore, that the myth that one of the things from which this country is suffering is its relatively too great reliance on direct taxation will not stand up to examination of the facts concerning incentives Further than that, the statement itself is untrue once direct and indirect taxes are defined in a more or less commonsense manner. Again, this is something which my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton points out very clearly in the booklet I have mentioned.
It is true that we bear more direct taxation in this country compared with indirect taxation only if we include a pay roll tax and National Insurance contributions as being direct taxes. In some sense they are. One could argue indefinitely about the extent to which they are passed on. But taking the much more normal, conventional and commonsense definition of indirect taxation as being taxes on goods—for example, Purchase Tax and Customs and Excise duties, or in other countries the sales tax, the turnover tax, and the rest—it is completely untrue that this country relies very much

more heavily on direct taxation, as compared, for example, with the European countries, which rely more heavily on indirect taxation. I do not think that this commonly accepted statement can be taken as true.
The third myth, which is propagated particularly by the Minister of Education, or was when he was associated with the Treasury, is that under the Conservative régime of the last few years direct taxation as a proportion of total taxation has increased. This conjures up the agreeable picture of a Tory Government with an inextinguishable zeal for greater equality, a total indifference for their more comfortably off supporters, and a constant desire for greater social justice, and so on. It would be very curious if, at the end of ten years of Conservative government, we had a more progressive tax system than we had at the beginning, if they were genuinely taking a greater proportion of our total tax in direct taxation.
Again, this turns out not to be the case on a detailed examination of the figures. It is true that direct taxation has increased as a proportion of the total if—but only if—we include National Insurance contributions in direct taxation. Whatever their utility from other points of view, they certainly cannot be called a highly progressive tax. Once we take away National Insurance contributions, which have certainly increased very considerably under the Conservative Government, and confine our attention to personal Income Taxes, we find that they have significantly fallen as a proportion of total tax under the Conservative Government, which, indeed, is what we would expect.
In other words, the tax system has grown markedly more regressive. Thus, these are three myths none of which we can accept, but all of which it is a good thing briefly to attend to once a year.
One or two facts, as opposed to myths, emerge from the presentation of the Clause in this form.

Sir Alexander Spearman: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement that there has been no growth during the past year compared with the previous year with the statement in the Economic Report that


the output per man hour last year had risen by 4 per cent. in comparison with no change in the previous two years?

Mr. Crosland: Perhaps whoever is to reply could give us official Government figures, because I do not think that my statement would be disputed.

Sir A. Spearman: I was quoting the Economic Report.

Mr. Crosland: Perhaps the Government could give us as a comparison official figures derived from the Economic Reports of previous years as to the rate of growth in the last three years compared with that in the five years before that. There certainly has been a fall in the average rate of growth in the most recent three years as compared with the five years before that.
I turn to one or two facts, again very briefly, which emerge from the presentation of the Clause in this form. The first fact is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to reject the suggestion so often made that Income Tax and Profits Tax should be assimilated into a single corporation tax. I think that on this we should have a comment from whoever is to reply. In his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this:
My predecessor referred to the question of amalgamating Income Tax and Profits Tax into a single corporation tax. The Inland Revenue have discussed a scheme for this purpose on a confidential basis with certain experts drawn from outside bodies. As the Committee may well he aware already, these discussions have led to the advice from industry that schemes which have been considered for the amalgamation of the two taxes are not satisfactory.
I accept this advice …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd April, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 466.]
4.45 p.m.
I cannot say what the advice was. Without knowing the advice, one cannot say that the Chancellor was wrong to accept it. All one can say is that we should have more explanation from the Government about why this idea has been rejected. It is, after all, an idea with a long history. It was put forward in the minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. It is fair to say that the idea has been supported by the great majority of the most ortho-

dox and respectable financial commentators. It tends to be supported by most City commentators. I should be grateful if the Economic Secretary, if he is to reply, would tell us why, as stated in this rather brief passage, the Chancellor has chosen to accept the advice against this tax which was tendered to him this year.
The other fact which emerges from the appearance of the tax in this Clause is that we are still to stick for another year to a system of income taxation which is fundamentally unsatisfactory. It is a system of income taxation which is based on a very narrow definition of income and hence it leads to extreme inequities between different taxpayers, quite apart from the inequalities between, as it were, the top and bottom of the scale.
One of the iniquities which we have often discussed and ought briefly to refer to again is the inequity between earned income receivers—I am not talking about capital—according to the source of their income. I am not talking about unearned income or investment income for the moment. This is partly a matter of the notorious difference between the treatment of expenses in Schedule D and Schedule E. It is partly due to the fact—one might as well put this brutally—that salaried executives, for example, have a very much lesser possibility of tax avoidance, I am not talking about illegal evasion, but of tax avoidance—than do many types of proprietor.
Not only does there tend to be an inequity between these two types of earned income receiver and taxpayer, but there are still some glaring loopholes in our Income Tax arrangements which deserve to be looked into in more detail. Can it possibly be maintained that the entire system of seven-year covenants can stand up to a critical examination? I do not believe for a moment that it can.
Far more serious than the inequity between Schedule D and Schedule E taxpayers, there is the iniquity between people with capital and people without. This goes back to the point already raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens).
The Economic Secretary in his speech replying to the Amendment, spoke of sneering references to unearned income.
I think that what we are discussing ought to be clear. I do not think that anybody on this side of the Committee would ever make sneering references to people who have built up a moderate capital on which they propose to live in their old age. Nobody is inclined to sneer at people like that. If we are talking about unearned income or investment income, by far the greater part of it goes, not to that type of taxpayer, but to people with far larger sums, either inherited or built up in the course of their lives. We are not discussing typically a person with a capital of £3,000 or £4,000—nor was the hon. Member for Langstone, if it comes to that.
The fundamental fact here is that the differentiation in our tax system, which was the subject of much discussion on the Amendment, between earned income and unearned income, although to my mind desirable, is completely inadequate. The differentiation was introduced well before 1914 to reflect the fact that the person with capital was in any fundamental sense very much better off than the person without capital, even though the incomes of the two might be the same. That was the reason historically for the introduction of the differentiation in favour of earned as against unearned income.
I am in favour of this differentiation, but my main objection to it is that it is far too small to reflect the real difference in spending power, in real wealth, in capacity to pay, or what you will, of two individuals with the same income, one with a substantial amount of capital and the other without. The differences between two such individuals are enormous.
The person with capital can maintain a level of spending which is not rigidly limited by his income or by the taxation of his income. He can, under our present system, unless he is lunatic enough to sell within six months, make capital gains which are still substantially tax free. He has far more general freedom, such as freedom not to take a job for a spell, far more room for manoeuvre, freedom to take risks, far more freedom from authority—far more freedom of all kinds.
In fact, taking these two individuals—the one with capital and the other without—with the same incomes, their total

situation in life, as it were, is in no way reflected by their incomes. The man with capital is far better off in both material and non-material ways than the man without capital. My objection to the differential in our present Income Tax law is that it is far too small to reflect the real differences between these two individuals.

Mrs. Evelyn Emmet: Would the hon. Gentleman clear up one point? Will be say at what stage it is possible to earn capital and remain an honourable member of society, and beyond which one then becomes slightly disreputable because one has too much?

Mr. Crosland: So far as I know, I have accused nobody of being disreputable merely because he owns capital, and neither would I do so, particularly after the trouble and the battle that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) got into.
The point is that if people own large amounts of capital—and I have not said that it is disreputable for people to own these large amounts of capital—there should be a system of taxation which bears on them in relation to their true wealth, and not simply the income from the capital which is not a reflection of their true wealth.

Mrs. Emmet: At what stage does the hon. Gentleman put the word "large"?

Mr. Crosland: At what stage would the hon. Lady do so?

Mrs. Emmet: I am asking the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Crosland: I probably would not disagree with the hon. Lady. What figure would she regard as large—£20,000, £50,000, £100,000.

Mrs. Emmet: I am asking the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Crosland: I will take any figure that the hon. Lady cares to fix. I will take her definition of a large amount of capital. I do not think that hon. Members on different sides of the Committee would disagree about what is a large amount of capital.

Mrs. Emmet: State a figure.

Mr. Crosland: No, I will accept the hon. Lady's figure. What figure would she like—£50,000?
Let us take that figure. Even assuming that two groups of people have the same incomes, the people with £50,000 are treated differently by our Income Tax system but the differentiation is not sufficient to reflect the difference in their positions. One of the many reasons for this is that the man with capital can and the man without capital cannot have access to capital gains which are tax free under our present definition of "income". One of the ways in which we could make the differentiation more real would be to have a genuine and more proper system of capital gains taxation.
I apologise for having spoken for rather longer than I had intended, but for all these reasons. I think that there are inequities in our present system of income taxation. I do not think that it is satisfactory as it stands. However, we on this side of the Committee are, as ever, magnanimous. We do not regard these criticisms as being a sufficient reason for voting against the Clause. It would, I suppose, be inprudent to do so as we shall be in office in a few months' time, anyway.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Gentleman slipped rather quickly over the reference to seven-year covenants. Would it be the policy of hon. Members opposite, if they had the chance, to change the provision under which many retired people with only their State pension are able to supplement their income with a little extra under a deed of covenant?

Mr. Crosland: No, I am not against all deeds of covenant. I think that I chose my words carefully. What I said was: can any hon. Member say truthfully that he regards the whole range of seven-year covenants under our present income tax legislation as being satisfactory? Personally, I do not. I certainly can see a case for seven-year covenants in many circumstances. I would have thought, however, that the privilege was the subject of misuse, and I should like the Treasury to look at it very carefully indeed.

Mr. Donald Wade: I am not going to enter into this auction between the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and the hon. Lady the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) as to what is a large amount of capital.
I should like to refer to another subject which is relevant to this Clause. Under this Clause the standard rate of Income Tax will be retained at 7s. 9d. in the £. I think that this is an appropriate time for questioning the necessity for having a standard rate at all. There is a great deal of unreality about this standard rate. When it is said that Income Tax is imposed at 7s. 9d. in the £, that creates the impression that the majority of Income Tax payers are, in fact, paying 7s. 9d. in the £.
But that is most unlikely to be the case. Very few Income Tax payers pay precisely 7s. 9d. in the £ on their total income. If one calculates the total income of any individual, one finds that the amount of tax that he pays is not 7s. 9d. in the £. It may be more if he is a Surtax payer—it could well be more—but in the majority of cases it is less than 7s. 9d. in the £.
This use of the expression "standard rate of Income Tax" adds to the general confusion. Therefore, in any major tax reforms I would certainly advocate the abolition of the standard rate of tax and I would introduce a sliding scale. I think that, as a result of that, the amount of tax which people would pay would be more easily understood.
It seems fashionable at this stage of the debate to refer to pamphlets and other publications. I understand that, under the American system, in the House of Representatives one can ask for any article or publication to be included in the record. I am not suggesting that we should adopt that system here. It would certainly add to the amount of time taken in reading HANSARD if that were the case. However, if such a system did apply here I would ask for a Report to the Liberal Party on Taxation under the chairmanship of Professor Wheatcroft, published in September last year, to be included in the record because I think it is an extremely good booklet and I believe it has been commended by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
I will content myself by quoting one brief paragraph from it. It refers precisely to this subject of the standard rate of Income Tax. It says:
The existing income tax is built round the fiction of a standard rate of tax which in theory provides a common level of tax for


the five income tax schedules. In fact, a complicated system of allowances and exemptions has been introduced, which permits most tax-payers to pay income tax at less than the standard rate. The committee believes, there- fore, that it is the high, but largely irrelevant 'standard' rate which makes the existing system incomprehensible and unwieldy.
I think it would be a valuable reform to abolish the standard rate as such. The amount of tax that people would pay would be more readily understandable if one had a sliding scale which could be quoted in terms both of percentage of the £ and shillings in the £.
Of course, I recognise that this raises certain questions, and I am not going to dwell on them at any length. First, the question arises as to whether this would complicate the system of P.A.Y.E. I do not believe it would. I think that one could quite well arrive at the rate by reference to a sliding scale, but I would suggest that allowances should be treated as tax deductions: that is to say, one would not take into account the allowances before arriving at the taxable income. One would arrive at the income and the rate according to a sliding scale, and then one would make a tax deduction in accordance with the allowances applicable. The net amount actually payable would work out the same. It is merely a matter of a difference in procedure.
The other question which is very naturally asked is: what about the deduction of tax at the standard rate, for example on dividends? I think it would be quite possible to arrive at a rate per cent. which would be deducted, say, from dividends paid out of the profits of a company. That, of course, would be accounted for by the company to the Revenue and the taxpayer would receive a tax credit.
5.0 p.m.
I do not think that the administrative difficulties are insuperable, and I believe that it would be a step towards the simplification of taxation if we got away from the idea of the standard rate. If that were so, one would no longer be involved in discussing the relationship between Surtax and Income Tax. That would be irrelevant because Income Tax and Surtax would be merged and there would be one sliding scale.
So long as we have this standard rate and have to consider where tax reduc-

tions should be made, I would come and Surtax could be merged and there down in favour of other reductions at the precise moment in time, rather than a reduction in the standard rate. I am speaking of the present financial year. Therefore, like the hon. Member for Grimsby I am not opposing the Clause. I think that it is just about right that the standard rate remains at 7s. 9d. in the £ and that we should use such money as is available for tax reduction in other ways. I hope that it will not be long before we have some major tax reforms which will include the abolition of the standard rate of Income Tax.

Mr. Bruce Millan: My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in a brief speech made a number of extremely interesting points. In our lengthy debates on the Finance Bills we do not often have much of a chance to talk about basic questions of taxation or of taxation reform, and I want to make one or two brief points. May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend very warmly for the kind things that he said about me?
Concerning the standard rate, I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that there is a strong case for trying to get rid of the concept of the standard rate, because, undoubtedly, many people who come nowhere near paying the standard rate of Income Tax are under the mistaken impression that they are paying tax at that rate, and even people with quite high incomes, because of the operation of the earned income relief, do not pay the standard rate of 7s. 9d. in the £. There is, therefore, a great deal to be said for getting rid of this concept and working on a graded system of taxation without placing any undue emphasis or importance upon any particular rate of tax.
I appreciate that this is a very much more complicated change than may appear at first sight, because there are all the difficulties of withholding rates of tax from dividends and interest, to mention only one of the possible complications. But it seems to me that this is one of the fundamental questions of the form of structure of taxation as distinct from the incidence of taxation which any Government ought to be looking at.
In so far as direct taxation is a disincentive at all, it must be a disincentive at the marginal rate of tax, the rate of tax which applies at the next additional step in any individual's income, and if many individuals are under the mistaken impression that their marginal rate of tax is 7s. 9d. in the £, whereas in fact it is considerably less, that seems to me a very undesirable situation from the incentive point of view. I should have thought that, quite apart from any arguments about incidence of the rate of tax, this was a change in structure which any Government concerned with incentives might be willing to look at. I appreciate, of course, that it is an extremely complicated matter.
There is another question which I think the Government ought to look at. This is the fact that the standard rate of Income Tax, or any rate of Income Tax, is modified considerably by all sorts of concessions, allowances and reliefs. Many of these allowances and reliefs are perfectly legitimate and all of us would support them. But there is a criticism to be made of the present Income Tax system, in that the nominal rates of tax are in fact considerably higher than the actual rates of tax, when one takes into account the very considerable opportunities that are available to the taxpayer for reducing his actual taxation liability. I think that it is also a fair point to make that the further one goes up the income scale, the much greater are opportunities for reducing one's actual taxation liabilities.
My hon. Friend mentioned seven-year covenants. Obviously, many of these covenants are in favour of charities, and one would have to tread very carefully in this matter. One would not want to disallow covenants for charities which up to the present had been allowed for taxation relief. But this is simply one example of the opportunities that there are available for the taxpayer to reduce his taxation liability and to give charities a good deal of additional income at the expense of the Treasury. We may consider this a desirable thing to do, but I think that it has to be looked at carefully. If charities are a matter where obviously there is a balance to be drawn, I should have thought that covenants in favour of individuals raise fundamental issues of taxation policy, where the balance seems to

me to be drawn at the moment too much in favour of the taxpayer who wants to alienate his income and reduce his taxation liability to provide additional income for, perhaps, payment of public school fees, or for a relative, largely at the expense of the Revenue. This is the sort of thing that we ought to be looking at.

Mr. Kimball: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Under the seven-year covenant system, the actual person paying the tax and paying the covenant does not gain anything from it. It is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who loses because the charity claims back the money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It does not reduce one's tax liability. The hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree about a very valuable concession which he does not understand and which will cause an awful lot of worry to people who benefit from it.

Mr. Millan: This confirms the point that the Treasury loses the money. Therefore, if the Treasury is losing, it has an interest in seeing that it does not lose an excessive amount of money whether in favour of charities or anyone else. If we want to make these payments to charities, we ought to be clear about the way we do it, and this, too, is a matter which the Government should consider.

The Chairman (Sir William AnstrutherGray): I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think that in considering any sort of relief of taxation we should take into account that that would come under a different Clause.

Mr. Millan: My mind was diverted by the interruption of the hon. Member, which was quite irrelevant to the point which I was making, and which was related to the alienation of income in favour of individuals. That seems to me to be very relevant to the question of the standard rate of Income Tax. The point that I am making is that if an individual at a high rate of taxation is able to alienate some of his income in favour of someone else at a low rate of taxation, the taxation liability taken as a whole is very considerably reduced. I am illustrating this as a loophole or defect in our present taxation system which makes the present Clause providing for


a standard rate of Income Tax at 7s. 9d. in the £ quite unrealistic. I should have thought that that was in order under this Clause. It is only one illustration of the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby was making.
One could talk in the same way about business expenses or life assurance relief. Many people with high incomes pay for life assurance policies not for the purpose of obtaining life assurance but for the purpose of obtaining tax relief. It may be perfectly legitimate to allow certain taxation reliefs in respect of saving, but I cannot for the life of me see why there should be such favourable allowances given to saving through life assurance compared with saving through the savings banks, provident societies, unit trusts—perhaps this might appeal to the Economic Secretary—or a variety of other methods.
The point is that all these allowances and reliefs go to reduce the effect of a graded Income Tax. Although one is able to adduce good reasons for giving the concessions when one thinks in terms of concessions which are comparatively modest in relation to individuals, there is at present a great deal of abuse and, in fact, the effective rates of taxation, particularly on those with the highest incomes, are very much less than the actual nominal rates of taxation which we provide for, quite unrealistically, year by year in our Finance Acts. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government, who have been thinking about tax reform, should pay attention to this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby referred also to the entirely different situation of the person who has unearned income and, therefore, a considerable amount of capital behind him as compared with the person who relies exclusively on earned income. It seems to me that in taxation matters, as in many matters, the balance is not heavily weighed at the moment against the person with unearned income but it is, in fact, weighed too heavily against individuals with earned income. Far from accepting an Amendment of the kind we disposed of earlier this afternoon, in order to get real equity in our taxation system we require an Amendment which would put

the balance in the other direction, whether by means of a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, or whatever it might be. But that is a taxation reform of the kind which would affect the incidence of taxation. My preference, if we had to decide priorities in this matter, would be to favour taxation reforms which affect the incidence of taxation rather than reforms which simply affect the structure of taxation.
Obviously, there must be a great difference between the two sides of the Committee on this question of changing the incidence of taxation, but, even if we cannot agree with the Government about that, they should at least look at some of the other reforms which have been mentioned—the assimilation of Income Tax and Surtax, a corporation tax, the abolition of the concept of the standard rate—all of which would make our taxation structure a good deal more intelligible than it is now without necessarily affecting the incidence of taxation between different classes of taxpayer. Because we have so few opportunities to debate this subject, I hope that the Economic Secretary will be able to say something about it.

Mr. du Cann: As the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) said, the fact that we have this hardy perennial in the form of a Clause to raise Income Tax and the higher rates of tax for the succeeding year gives us an opportunity to have a general discussion about taxation which is much to be welcomed. Several interesting points have been raised during this short debate—I appreciate that it has been deliberately short—which we have had.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Grimsby referred to the publication Taxes for a Prosperous Society written under the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). With very much of that pamphlet I agree. On the other hand, I must say very firmly, particularly having regard to the somewhat optimistic remarks of the hon. Member for Grimsby about the result of the next election, that, although I agree with a great deal of it, there is much in it which I hope will remain still the subject only of academic study and never be put into practice. It is clear


that both sides of the Committee differ quite substantially in their attitudes towards taxation.
5.15 p.m.
I was interested in the somewhat immodest remarks—he will not mind my saying that—of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) who suggested that the Liberal Party pamphlet represented the panacea for all our ills and that we only had to throw away all our pennies and, in the words once used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), get rid of the "dammed dots", everything in the garden would be lovely.

Mr. Wade: I did not use the word "panacea". The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I said that it was a very valuable document well worth studying. At least, I said words to that effect, and I did not use any exaggerated phraseology. It is a very useful document.

Mr. du Cann: I dare say that it is. Perhaps the best thing to do is to pass from it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I thought that it was the father of the right hon. Member for Woodford who referred to those dots, not the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. du Cann: Entirely right—I agree. I pass, then, from the Liberal Party pamphlet, whether it be a panacea or not.
I thought that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, made a relevant point, which was confirmed by the hon. Member for Craigton, when he reminded us that the term "standard rate" is, in a sense, misleading because the effective rate of tax, as pointed out in the Financial Statement, is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, very different from what we call the standard rate.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say something about the merging of Income Tax and Surtax. I am sure that this would be very desirable if it could be achieved, but I think it right to draw attention to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) who

spoke at some length on this subject during the Budget debate in 1961. What is plain is that the difficulties really are formidable and certainly should not be underrated. Even if one, so to speak, forgot the term "Surtax", which is in any case, perhaps, a term of art, all that would happen in the end would be that one would change the nomenclature but not the system. Certainly, if those two forms of tax were to be amalgamated, very important and far-reaching changes would have to be envisaged, and I am not at all sure that all of them would meet with the approval of the Committee as a whole. Be that as it may, what is plain is that the simplification of taxation is very much to be desired, though it is easier to describe than to achieve in fact.
Our discussion yesterday of the Customs and Excise on the first nine Clauses of the Bill showed that there is continuous scope for simplification. My right hon. Friend should be given a good deal of credit, which he has not yet been fully accorded either by the Committee or by the country as a whole, for such simplification as has been achieved in the Budget.
What interests me about the short debate we have had is that no one has suggested a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends would like to have seen a reduction in the standard rate. So, I think, should we all. But my right hon. Friend deliberately decided against that and decided to concentrate his reliefs on taxpayers with small and medium incomes. The fact that no one has specifically raised this question seems to me to be a clear indication yet again, if it were needed, that the theme of the Budget is very much approved.
The hon. Member for Grimsby said a good deal on the subject of direct and indirect taxation. I agree at once that international comparisons are very difficult to make. It is by no means easy to find common basis from which to start. But I find some difficulty in entirely following his very definite assertion that direct taxation has been reduced only in the case of personal taxation while there has been a Conservative Administration.
I have the facts in front of me and the position is that of total taxation something like 51 per cent. was taken by direct taxation in 1950–51, which compares with the figure of 53·2 per cent. today, after my right hon. Friend's Budget. If the calculation is made on the existing basis, and before the Budget for 1963–64, the figure would be 54 per cent. It is therefore right to argue that the proportion taken by direct taxation has, in fact, increased, and I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied at that assertion.
On the other hand, for my own part, I am delighted that the result of the Budget should be to reduce the proportion taken by direct taxation, for I am certain it is the view of my hon. Friends, and certainly it is the view of my right hon. Friend and myself, that the proportion taken by direct taxation had already risen too high.

Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I think there may be a misunderstanding. The point I was making was that the proportion taken in direct taxation has increased only if National Health Insurance contributions are included as direct taxation. I think that the figures which are relevant are those excluding National Insurance contributions.

Mr. du Cann: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I ought to pursue this matter privately because we could go to and fro over it for a very long time. I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point about National Insurance contributions for this reason. They are, after all, a payment for a benefit which one is going to receive eventually and are not simply a matter of taxation which, in theory, at any rate, is entirely lost. Therefore, it seems to me that the view which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, and which he is certainly entitled to take, does not altogether hold water in the sense in which he was putting the argument to the Committee.

Mr. Millan: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that other forms of taxation which are then lost are Income Tax and so on. Surely there is no distinction between Income Tax taxation and indirect taxation and the National Health contributions from that point of

view. We all hope that we shall get value from the Government, but some have doubts about it, though I should not think that the hon. Gentleman is one of them.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman is slightly ahead of me. I was going on to a further point on this question of direct and indirect taxation, and it is this. In discussing this Budget, and in discussing this Clause in particular, I think it is perhaps almost inevitable that we should overlook—though I believe that we should not—the very substantial changes which my right hon. Friend has already made in Purchase Tax and indirect taxation. The reductions in Purchase Tax will cost £87 million in a full year.
Nor do I think that one should ignore—and here I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Craigton—the really enormous expenditure taking place at the present time on the social services. A man who does not have to pay for the education of his children is obviously getting a very real benefit indeed, and there are many other examples which I will not particularise at the present moment. What I want to say in sum to the hon. Member for Grimsby is, first, that we take the view that the incidence of direct taxation had risen too high. We take the view that it is appropriate to reduce it. We also take the view that a great deal has been done, particularly in recent months, to reduce indirect taxation, and also that one cannot leave out of the calculations the many benefits which our citizens are properly obtaining through the social services. It is extraordinarily difficult to generalise on this subject.
I think that the hon. Member for Grimsby, perhaps not quite to the extent that the hon. Member for Craigton did, gave a number of very serious hostages to fortune on the subject of the Labour Party's taxation policy for the future. A great deal was said by inference about the need for a wealth tax. There was some difficulty about definition. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet) interrupted the hon. Member for Grimsby in order to try to get him to be specific as to the quantum of capital that it would be thought appropriate by the Labour Party to take. It was not clear to me whether it was £20,000 or £50,000, but, whatever the figure is, it seems to me not to be a very


large sum in the context of today. I cannot help feeling that there are many in the United Kingdom who, once they realise the ramifications of the scheme in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, will be very angry indeed, not least people in the farming community.

Mr. Crosland: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? The National Economic Development Council, of which the Chancellor is chairman, has recently come out with Report No. 2, saying that the idea of a wealth tax is worth the most serious consideration of any Government. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor at what level the National Economic Development Council thinks that this wealth tax should start?

Mr. du Cann: I agree with my right hon. Friend's estimate. First, I think the hon. Member for Grimsby should get his quotations right. I recommend him to reread the paragraph. The word "may" was prominent in it. Perhaps I could refer the hon. Gentleman to an Answer I had the pleasure of giving to his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. North (Mr. Jay) last Thursday, in which the position was set out clearly. He will see that it was referred to in an article in the Sunday Times last Sunday by a man whose name temporarily escapes me. I think that the point is perfectly plain and that there is no capital to be made on the subject.
What I want to get very clear is this. I really cannot understand the attitude of the Labour Party which says, in effect, that if a man work hard all is life and saves £3,000 by building up a little shop or something of that sort, and sells it before he dies, that is a good and fine thing to do, but that if a man works equally as hard and builds up £20,000 there is something wicked and anti-social about it. I cannot understand it. It makes no sense at all. Indeed, I go further and say that what we require in these days more than anything else is to encourage the person who will build up a business, make something of himself, create an asset for the country and provide employment. Indeed, if we had a little more initiative and enterprise, and if people were not frightened of what the Labour Party might do to them in the future, it might be that we should make a good deal more progress.
We also had a discussion on the subject of structural changes in taxation, whether we should try to effect primarily the incidence of taxation on individuals. The hon. Member for Grimsby referred especially to the announcement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made during his Budget speech on the possible amalgamation of Income Tax and Profits Tax into the form of a single corporation tax. Of course, the inquiry now being made by someone whom an hon. Member called yesterday "Mr. Gordon Richards" has more relevance on this point.
In regard to the specific questions which I was asked, as to whether this idea has been dropped because the financial discussions foreshadowed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral had not been successful, I can say in reply that clearly the idea has not been abandoned. It will continue to be considered. The fact is that the particular schemes being discussed simply did not prove to be satisfactory.
Finally, a number of detailed points were raised on the subject of taxation matters. In general, it was suggested that there are many iniquities in the present system. I certainly think it true to say that there are a number of anomalies. I have suggested that to some extent we have been able to make progress and to take away some of those anomalies, especially in the Customs section. I hope that this is a continuous matter. Certainly it is very much the intention of my right hon. Friend and of my Treasury colleagues that it should be continuous. The aim should always be before us to attempt to provide a more simplified and better and fairer system. I do not pretend that the system is in any way entirely satisfactory.
5.30 p.m.
I will not deal with all the detailed questions, but I should like to mention one in particular, namely, covenants. If the Labour Party proposes to do away with covenants, it should say so plainly to the electorate. A very large number of people and institutions obtain great benefit from this form of help.
My principal reason for raising the subject is this. As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides know, as Economic Secretary, I have some responsibility for the arts. I am constantly being


pressed for more money to be made available for the arts. The Committee is aware of the position, and I will not dwell on it. A great deal of progress has been made, but I am particularly pressed by some hon. Members opposite to provide tax concessions for the arts on the American model—in other words, to go very much further than we are going at present with regard to covenants.
It seems to me that there is some conflict of opinion among members of the Labour Party on this subject, and I wish them joy in resolving it. For my part, I would simply say again that I believe that the system of covenants has been of great assistance to many institutions which are well deserving of help, and from that point of view they are rather to be encouraged than abolished.
I am sure that it is most useful that we should have debates of this sort. It is perhaps a pity in many ways that we have not allowed ourselves more time to consider this subject. As the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—I apologise for the mistake earlier—suggested in his Second Reading speech, there will be opportunities to discuss Purchase Tax later. Perhaps we can regard those debates as an extension of this one.

Mr. Houghton: I had no intention of taking part in the debate on this Clause until I listened with growing impatience to the highly provocative speech of the Economic Secretary. This Clause gives the Committee an opportunity to discuss the traditions and the system of taxation in this country, to cast doubts on its equity and to make suggestions for its improvement without inviting the hon. Gentleman to make speeches charged with political prejudice and innuendo in the hope that he may do some political damage to the Opposition.
The Economic Secretary asks what the Labour Party would do about this or that and that we should make our position plain. Cannot we have a discussion on a matter of this kind without commitments from either side? Cannot we make suggestions which may receive, or should receive, the consideration of the country and of the House of Commons generally

without having the sort of response that we have had from the hon. Gentleman? He asks what the Labour Party would do about covenants. We are not against covenants in principle, provided that they are used for an approved purpose and not abused. But will hon. Members opposite defend the alienation of personal incomes in favour of members of a man's own family for the express purpose of lightening the family tax burden?
The hon. Gentleman probably remembers or, if he does not, has read of the bogus covenants in favour of minors which became such a scandal before the war that a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer had to put a stop to them. Millions of them were being taken out by parents to alienate their own income in favour of their own children. Two parents could meet and come to an understanding regarding their mutual commitments under their respective covenants. No money ever passed, yet they were able to claim tax remission on behalf of their own children as minors. One could buy these forms in stationers' shops, just stick a stamp on and get tax relief. No wonder Mr. Neville Chamberlain brought that racket to an end.
That is the origin of the present law that a parent cannot alienate his own income to one of his own children, and this Government would not propose to change it. But income can be alienated in favour of a niece, nephew or grandchildren and there can be mutual pacts made within a family to alienate income on an exchange basis. That is the sort of covenant to which we object. and if hon. Members opposite want to get up and defend that sort of arrangement let them do it now. We fully realise that covenants in favour of charities are beneficial for many causes of which we approve.
I pass from covenants, because I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unduly. I must say that I am charged with emotion at the moment, and I must sit down before it gives out. The Economic Secretary says that, when people in the country hear what the Labour Party proposes to do about changing the base of taxation and to make it more equitable, they will be very angry. Will they? Who will be angry? Out of 21 million people whose


incomes were examined by the Inland Revenue in its 105th Report, just published, 13½ million had no investment income at all. Sixty-four per cent. of the capital wealth revealed by the Inland Revenue Report is in the hands of less than 1 million people. A third of it is owned by 130,000 people. In other words, £400 million worth of investment income is owned by 130,000 people.
Those figures reveal the present distribution of capital wealth in the country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) pointed out that the person who has a large sum of capital behind him is obviously in a better position to pay taxes than the person depending on his salary month by month who may have a break-down or suffer some family disaster which can make a drastic reduction in his standard of living.

Sir James Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that every farmer with a 100 acre farm would be caught if the wealth tax started at £20,000?

Mr. Houghton: I am not saying that it should start at £20,000. No one on these benches has said that a wealth tax should start at £20,000. Discussion has taken place on a wealth tax and suggestions have been put forward about the framework within which that tax should be devised. There is no commitment on these benches that a wealth tax should start at £20,000. In fact, there is no commitment on these benches that there should be a wealth tax at all.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I think that the figure of £20,000 was mentioned by a prominent member of the Labour Party and was discussed in various newspapers. Are we to take it that the tax might conceivably start at less than £20,000?

Mr. Houghton: I shall become even more angry. The hon. Gentleman is merely trying to lay a further political trap in the hope that something may come out of it. I know well enough that there are no depths to which hon. Members opposite will not stoop in their present desperate plight. Intellectual dishonesty will become absolute perfidy before the next election is over. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] What have I to answer? I am asking the Committee and the coun-

try to consider a change in our tax system which will spread the burden of taxation more equitably on the shoulders which have to bear it. That is what I am asking and in that context a tax on wealth cannot be ruled out. Indeed, it is getting more respectable every day. There is no doubt that we cannot get a fair system of taxation without it.
Will hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that the fruits of proprietorship are far greater than the rewards of endeavour? It does not matter how exalted an executive is, he cannot accumulate the capital which is at the disposal of a person who may capitalise the prospects of his own business. It that denied? Over the years, hon. Members opposite know that many individuals have built up enormous fortunes out of capital appreciation, the conversion of the prospects of their business into capital rewards, which so far have gone untaxed.
People are walking about and listening to the legend that taxation is so high and so crippling that they can hardly move without the tax collector having his hands in their pockets, and yet we see these enormous fortunes being built up, clearly showing that the system of taxation of incomes is not doing the job that it purports to do and is certainly not bringing equity into the distribution of the load of taxation. Are any of these things denied on the benches opposite? If so, let us hear it now. If not, let us stop a lot of this humbug and hypocrisy.

Mr. A. R. Wise: This is a serious matter of political philosophy. Is the object of taxation to provide revenue with which to run the country, or to conduct a reorganisation of the social system?

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Member knows full well that taxation is used for redistributive purposes. It is not only out of National Insurance contributions that benefits come. The National Health Service, the social services generally and education are all, in a sense, measures of the redistribution of national income.
When the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) asks whether taxation is to be used for revenue purposes or for an alteration in the social system, my answer is that "revenue purposes" has a much broader context now than it had in the nineteenth century, when Governments


regarded revenue as merely the basis for defence, the Civil Service and a narrow field of Government activity. It is much broader than that now.
I will not detain the Committee any longer, but the speech of the Economic Secretary was more than I could stand and I have brought to bear upon the discussion a few facts which have to be taken into account by people outside before they get worked up into a condition of anger in order to preserve the wealth of 130,000 people.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(AMENDMENTS TO PART VIII OF ACT OF 1952 (PERSONAL ETC. RELIEFS).)

Mr. Wade: I beg to move in page 9, line 37, to leave out "£320" and to insert "£390".

The Chairman: With this Amendment, it will be in order also to discuss the Amendments in line 37, leave out "£320" and insert "£350".

In line 39, leave out "£200" and insert "£235".

In line 42, leave out "£200" and insert "£235".

In page 10, line 4, leave out "£900" and insert "£1,000".

Mr. Wade: Thank you, Sir William. In moving my Amendment, I shall refer also to the Amendments in lines 39 and 42, because the three fit together. Their effect is to increase personal reliefs. In the case of the married couple, the increase would be from £320 to £390, an increase of £70. In the case of the single person, it would be from £200 to £235, an increase of £35, and in the case of a wife's earned income, from £200 to £235, which, again, would be an increase of £35.
5.45 p.m.
These Amendments have a twofold objective. The first is to increase the total personal reliefs and in that way to reduce the burden of taxation. Secondly, the Amendments would help to correct an anomaly in the Chancel-

lor's proposals contained in the Clause. To deal with the second point first, it appears to me that the proposals in the Clause favour the single person as compared with the married couple. In that respect, the Chancellor appears to be altering the trend of post-war legislation whereby the reliefs are weighted more in favour of the married couple than of the single person. The Clause seems to have the reverse effect. No doubt, if my calculations are incorrect, I shall be told so when the Minister replies.
Under the Clause, the personal allowance for a single person will be raised from £140 to £200, an increase of £60 or 43 per cent. In the case of a married couple, the increase is from £240 to £320, or £80, an increase of 33¼ per cent.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Thirty-three and one-third per cent.

Mr. Wade: I will not argue about that. In the case of the children's allowance, which I mention in passing, for a child under 11 years of age the increase is from £100 to £115, an increase of £15 or 15 per cent. In the case of a child aged between 11 and 16, it is an increase of 12 per cent., and for a child over 16 an increase of 10 per cent. The result of the changes seems to be to improve appreciably the relative position of single persons and to worsen appreciably the relative position of married couples and especially those with children.
One of the objects of my Amendments would be to alter that balance in favour of the married couple. The increase which I am proposing would be equal to that of two single persons. Assuming that a married couple have a combined income of £500, the result would be that they would pay no tax, that is to say, a married couple with an income of £10 a week would be relieved from tax.
I arrive at that figure by taking two-ninths of the earned income as being tax-free. Two-ninths come to £111 The addition of the marriage allowance of £390 gives a total of £501. Therefore, in the case of the married couple I am advocating a raising of the relief so that on a figure of £500 there would be total relief from tax.
Perhaps I should make the comment that under the Liberal tax reforms, to which I referred on Clause 10, the earned income of a husband and wife would not be aggregated for tax purposes. I have, however, to deal with the tax structure as it is. Similarly, as regards children's allowances, I would be in favour of a specific increase by way of family allowance for the first child. Apart from altering the balance as between the single person and the married couple, the intention of these Amendments is to increase the personal reliefs. I think it only right that I should make one or two general observations as I have no doubt that I shall be told that this might cost the Exchequer quite a lot of money.
First of all, these proposals have to be related to general and major tax reforms. In moving the Amendment I think I should be out of order if I were to develop that at length. Secondly, of course, an hon. Member, in moving an Amendment to the Finance Bill, can only propose tax reductions. Therefore, I cannot really give the overall picture, but the precise cost of a particular Amendment is really only relevant in the overall picture. I would not necessarily accept that the amount of the cost would be the final answer one way or the other. Allowing for those two points, I think there is a third fundamental question which rightly should be asked, and that is, are the tax concessions already granted adequate? Is the reduction in taxation sufficient, having regard to the fact that there is still slack in the economy? I take the view that the Chancellor has not done sufficient to expand the economy and to deal with the existing slack in the economy.

Captain Walter Elliot: Does the hon. Member happen to know approximately what his proposal would cost?

Mr. Wade: I have made my own estimate of what the cost would be, but I have no doubt we shall be given the figure later on. I have made my own estimate, but I think that probably the Government could give an accurate figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the hon. Member's?"] My own estimate is about £200 million, but the Treasury is in a very much better position to give a precise figure, and I think it only

fair that we should be given the figure in due course.
I think the fundamental point we have to ask is this, is there a slack in the economy and has sufficient been done to reduce taxation in the light of that? I will say quite frankly that these proposals are designed to create a further expansion of the economy. If a more expansionist policy had been pursued last year it might well have been unnecessary to boost the economy to the same extent at the present time. So often the error is in timing. If one is asked how great a boost is needed at the present moment, one has to begin by saying, "Well, the mistake was made last year." Tax reductions needed at the moment to boost the economy are greater because of the errors made during last year. So often, as I say, the timing is wrong, but whatever one's views may be about the timing I think it is clear that something more will have to be done than has been done by the Chancellor, and as proposed in this Bill.
I was interested this morning to read a report in The Times of a speech by the First Secretary of State. He was speaking, apparently, to an audience of businessmen, and is reported to have used these words, the
steps which have been taken or may still have to be taken, because I believe there is still shack in the economy".
That was what a leading spokesman of the Government said. I should like to know what we are waiting for if there is this slack in the economy. If something more has to be done, when is it going to be done, and why is it not being done now? That, I think, is the real problem which is facing us.
I have here various quotations, but I am not going to weary the Committee with them as time available is less than we bad anticipated it would be, but I think I must summarise just a few points. First, there is a considerable weight of opinion in favour of the view that the Budget will not result in achieving the target of 4 per cent. per annum in the coming years. We have to remember that the gross domestic product actually declined by ½ per cent. in 1962, and, as I said before, what we do now has to be judged in the light of the mistakes which have been made in past years, and it may well be that we should


today have to aim at a higher rate than 4 per cent. to get anywhere near the average of 4 per cent. which is required. I am not at all sure that we shall not find next winter that the unemployment figures go up to about 500,000, unless more energetic steps are taken than have been taken so far; and that is a very serious prospect.
Again, we have to remember the harm which has been done in the past by wrong timing. It was Sir Roy Harrod writing in the Financial Times on 1st January, 1961, who pointed out that the nation had lost over £2,000 million worth of goods and services through the Government's inability to keep the economy on a steady rate of growth between 1955 and 1960. As I have said, we have to deal with the situation today in the light of past errors, and in the very real need for expanding the economy I believe we must take a bold course if the steps are to be adequate.
It is in view of this very real need for expansion that I am moving this Amendment. Its object, as I say, is to reduce taxation at the lower level. I think it will undoubtedly add to the purchasing power of the community. I think it will have some effect on the expansion of the economy, and I believe that to be necessary.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: I rise to deal very briefly with another kind of relief with which I deal in my Amendment in page 10, line 4. This is what is generally known as old-age relief. I make no apology for raising this matter for in the census of the elderly it was found that Dorset has a greater proportion of retired people than any other county, and therefore I believe that my county is particularly affected by my Amendment.
The effect of the Chancellor's concession, for which I am grateful, was to give earned income relief of a total of £900 as against £800 in the past. I am rising to urge him to try to go further, if not this year, at any rate next year. It may seem to some a comparatively small concession but I believe it is one of considerable importance.
I would put my case on three different grounds. First, the cost of it is not very

great. The cost of this extension from £800 to £900 which the Chancellor has given us is only £750,000 this year and £1½ million next year. So the cost to the Exchequer is comparatively small, taking into account the total extra cost of the Budget.
Secondly, the benefit to those affected retired people who are in difficulties in this age of inflation is considerable. Indeed, I gather that those who are on an income of £900 will gain by paying £37 less tax than would have been the case if the Amendment had not been moved by the Chancellor.
Thirdly, I would point out to the Financial Secretary that this class of person—again, my constituency is particularly affected—has been hardly hit by the extra rate demands which are reaching them at present. Indeed, it would be true to say in many cases that the whole of the concession is swallowed up by the extra cost of rates. People usually go into retirement on a fairly fixed budget, and many who have either constructed or bought new bungalows have been very hard hit by the extra rates.
Consequently, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to do a little more. It would involve a comparatively small cost to the Exchequer, but in an age like the present I believe that the retired people are suffering particularly. They have not had the advantage—

ROYAL ASSENT

6.2 p.m.

Whereupon The GENTLEMAN-USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963.
2. Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963.
3. Nursing Homes Act, 1963.
4. Corn Rents Act, 1963.
5. Fort William Pulp and Paper Mills Act, 1963.


6. Bradford Corporation (Conditioning House) Act, 1963.
7. Shell Chemicals Distributing Company of Egypt Act, 1963.
8. B.P. Refinery (Kwinana) Act. 1963.
9. Commonwealth Development Finance Company Act, 1963.
10. Sunderland Corporation Act, 1963.
11. Watford Corporation Act, 1963.

FINANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

Question again proposed, That "£320" stand part of the Clause.

Mr. Digby: I was endeavouring to show that, if the earned Income Tax allowance was extended yet further for people over 65, it would not cost the Exchequer very much. I do not know exactly what the total would be, but since the cost in a full year of extending it from £800 to £900 is £1½ million, presumably extending it from £900 to £1,000 would not entail very much more than that.
I was also endeavouring to show that the benefit to the class of people concerned would be very considerable, in that they would pay considerably less taxation at a time when they are in difficulties because of the increased rate burden placed on them, particularly in areas like my own in Dorsetshire, where the rates for private householders has risen very much more than it has in the country as a whole. Yet it is the very county where more retired people are said to live than anywhere else.
6.15 p.m.
I hope very much that my hon. Friend will look sympathetically at this and try to extend the concession a little further but that if he cannot do it this year it will be high on the list for next year. This is one of the best ways in which retired people, who are in some anxiety these days about the cost of living, could be helped, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give a sympathetic reply.

Mr. Houghton: I want particularly to refer to the Opposition Amendment in

my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends, in page 9, line 37, to leave out "£320" and to insert "£350".
The Liberal Amendments propose to lift the single person's relief and the married person's relief quite substantially. We feel that the Chancellor's proposals are, for this year, reasonable. Last year, the Committee will remember, we stressed that it was time that the personal allowances were improved. They had not been changed since 1955, whereas the standard rate of tax was reduced in 1959. We thought that Income Tax was levied rather too low down the scale in present circumstances, and the Chancellor no doubt heeded what we said.
The Chancellor's proposals this year moved in the right direction. Later in discussion on this Bill, we shall have a good deal to say about indirect taxation and, in particular, the present levels of Purchase Tax. We shall discuss all this in relation to the economic purpose of the Budget and in relation to the burden of taxation generally. So at this moment we are not asking the Chancellor to go further in general with personal allowances.
Yet it rather looks as if the way in which the Question may be put to the Committee will be such that we shall find ourselves in the Lobby with the Liberal Party. If that is so, we shall have to put up with it. If the Question is put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause", then we shall have to vote with the Liberal Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] All of them, even if it is only the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
The point behind our Amendment is merely, so to speak, to subtract a proportionate sum. I am sure that it did not escape the Chancellor and other hon. Members that a Mr. Sherwood wrote a letter to The Times on 13th April and drew attention—as he did also in a personal letter to the Chancellor—to the difference between the percentage increases in the reliefs of single and married persons respectively. He pointed out that the single person's allowance had been increased by 43 per cent. and married person's allowance by only 33 per cent. He suggested that the present weighting of £40 against matrimony had been increased to £80. I do not want to pursue


this point too far, but I think that it would help the Committee if the Financial Secretary would explain just how his right hon. Friend came to look at £320 for a married couple and £200 for a single person. There must be a reason for these figures.
We have heard many times that personal allowances are not kept exactly in proportion, that they do not necessarily rise with the fall in the value of money, that the Chancellor has to look at revenue yield and bear in mind many considerations when deciding on a change in the level of personal allowances for Income Tax. So we shall be quite prepared to hear that various factors weighed with the Chancellor when he made his decision.
I know that it is sometimes said that there is something anomalous in the total of personal allowances to two single persons who may be living together in contrast with the personal relief given to a married couple. The present allowance to two single persons of £140 each totals £280, whereas the personal allowance for a married man is £240. It is sometimes suggested, I am sure without foundation, that this puts a premium on living in sin. I cannot believe that, but the new personal reliefs undoubtedly widen that gap.
In fairness, it should be said that in the case of a married couple when the wife is working the personal reliefs are not £240 but £380 and that under the new proposals they will be not £320 but £520, so that there is a heavy bias in favour of getting married and sending the wife out to work. The maximum personal allowances under the Bill are such that two single persons living together both going to work do not get more than the single person's allowance each—a total of £400—against the total of £520 in the case of the married couple with the wife working.
I now come to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). We wish to see age relief taken as far up the scale as possible and we shall be discussing age exemption, which is an allied relief to some extent, later. But although we desire to see these reliefs improved as far as possible, we have to bear in mind that we cannot carry too far the difference

between the amount of tax paid when a person is 64 years of age and the amount of tax which he will pay when he is 65 on exactly the same income. That is the extent of relief which is given for attaining the age of 65.
A married couple without children with an investment income of £1,000 a year will pay tax of £217, but if age relief were given to a person over 65 receiving the same investment income, the tax would be not £217 but £132. That is £85 tax relief under the age relief provisions for a person passing from age 64 to age 65 on an investment income of £1,000 a year, the figure proposed by the hon. Member.
It is a matter of judgment whether that is carrying it too far or whether it is about right. A balance must be struck between the person under 65 who is paying the normal tax and the person attaining the age of 65 and who gets the benefit of either age relief or age exemption. I say that entirely without prejudice to an Amendment which we shall consider later. I have now risen only to give blessing to the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends while preserving an attitude of agnosticism towards the Liberal Amendment and that of hon. Members opposite.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very glad to be able to support the Amendments from both sides of the House. I am delighted to think that all parties feel that more should be done for those living on small fixed incomes. It is very heartening and warming.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be sorry that the concessions which have been made, valuable though they are, are not felt by all of us to be sufficient. It always takes a long time to get the Treasury to make a move forward. For instance, for several years the age relief has been put up. Many years ago we started at £600 and we gradually got it up to £800 and now it is to be made £900. The Treasury seems to have decided every year that we could move only by £100 a time. It has never regarded the whole problem. What worries me about the Treasury is that it deals so much in thousands of millions of pounds that there is nobody who gets down to considering the justice and fairness of the case of those who live on small fixed incomes.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) mentioned the disparity between the tax paid by someone of 64 and that paid by someone of 65 on the same income. That problem will always remain. If the age were made 64, it would then apply to those of 63. But it is only fair to point out that many people retire at 65. I should not mind if we got the age limit down to 60 or even 55, but the fact remains that 65 is the retiring age for many people and it therefore seems a reasonable age at which the concessions should operate.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will not use the argument which he has used on so many occasions—that to agree to the concessions suggested in the Amendments would mean asking other taxpayers to pay more. That argument can be taken too far. I know that we shall be told how many people are taken out of the Income Tax range altogether by the Bill, and that in itself reflects on those who are left to pay Income Tax. Among those who are left are those on small fixed incomes who perhaps cannot so easily afford to pay for these concessions.
One of the reasons for accepting the Amendments is the tremendous problem of the rate burden, which is the angle from which we should attack this matter. People have always had to pay rates, but to maintain our national economy and our competitive ability in the world the amount of money which has had to be spent on education has gone up by leaps and bounds.
No one would complain about that, because we know it is essential, but all these new scientific developments, all these new immense schools, all this tremendously powerful equipment that has to be put in to keep us in what I might call the space age, is increasing the educational burden out of all proportion to the other rates which have to be paid by the community. These things are imposing a tremendous burden on those living on small fixed incomes who had to save for their old age at a different period of life and in quite different circumstances.
6.30 p.m.
I noticed the other day—I think it was in my constituency—that 11s. of the rates went towards education. Going down the scale, the next level was at 1s. for many services which had to be maintained

by the local authority. When we are judging what is fair in relation to the rates which have to be paid, I think that we are giving an undue proportion of them to the development in education which is really going to satisfy the young people who are coming on and who no doubt—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is straying a little from the Amendment which is before the Committee.

Dame Irene Ward: Rates have been mentioned, Mr. Thomas, and I do not see why, in those circumstances, I cannot give a description of the rates.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady will realise that to mention a subject is one thing, but to go into detail is another, and I think that the hon. Lady knows the rules well enough to come back to the point.

Dame Irene Ward: I naturally bow to your Ruling, Mr. Thomas, but you will appreciate that it is very much easier for the Treasury to refuse to accept an Amendment if all the ancillary arguments surrounding it are not put before the responsible Minister. It is easy to say that rates are required for this, that or the other, but if a case is made out for an Amendment it makes it all the more difficult for the Treasury Minister to refuse to accept it. Nevertheless, I have made my point, and I am grateful to you for having let me run on for so long.
Much as I appreciate the concessions which have flowed from the Treasury in this direction, I do not think that the Treasury has been over-generous, and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that these people really have nobody to speak for them. They have served their country well. They did a great deal in the old days to build up the wealth and stability of the country, but now they have nobody to speak for them. They are not represented by employers' federations. They are not represented by the trades unions. They are not represented by powerful bodies whose voice can always be heard. That is why I am glad that today some of us have had the opportunity of drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the various Amendments, and I hope that he will give us a favourable reply.

Captain Walter Elliot: I have not worked out the concessions percentage-wise to be given to the single person as opposed to the married couple. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Sowerby referred to this and argued that we should give more help to married couples. According to the figures which have been published it is estimated that in future people will marry at a younger age than they do now and will have larger families.
It is built-in to our taxation system, and I suppose that very few hon. Members would think of approaching it in any other way, that tax concessions which are given in the most part go to assist married people with families—of whom I am one—as opposed to single people. It is, however, becoming increasingly clear to me that sooner or later this country will have to face the question of deciding exactly what population we can support. One would not expect the Treasury inadvertently to make a change like this and give a concession which assists the single person to a greater extent than the married couple and I hope my hon. Friend will tell us whether the considerations which I have mentioned are beginning to enter into the Treasury thinking on this matter.

Sir John Eden: I support this group of Amendments. Ever since I have represented Bournemouth, West in this House I have been made aware of the straitened circumstances in which people whose incomes are limited have been forced to live as a result of the natural inflation which has been taking place over the years. Other groups of people have been able virtually to contract out of the consequences of inflation and the declining value of money, but not these people.
They have seen the value of their savings eroded over the years. The little nest eggs they have set aside, planned originally to provide adequately for their needs in the days of their retirement, now prove to be insufficient to meet the barest necessities of life, and, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the imposition of the rate increases—some of them perhaps small sums in themselves—means a further addition to a burden which is already impossible for many of them to meet.
I know that in deference to your Ruling, Mr. Thomas, it is not possible to discuss rates. I therefore say, in passing, that, recognising the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has authorised an inquiry into the effect of the rate increases on people of limited means, this seems to be a good moment to anticipate the result of that inquiry, many of the details of which are known to me and to other hon. Members by virtue of the information that we have been given by our constituents, and pinpoint such relief as it is in our power to give so that it brings the maximum amount of benefit for these people who have been hardest hit over the past years.
Knowing the sympathy with which my hon. Friend approaches these matters, I urge him to look most carefully at this again and to consider this not from the standpoint of our immediate income or money value position, but from the point of anticipating over the next twelve months or two years what may well be the course of events, and what, not to bring in too controversial a point, will certainly be the course of events if the Labour Party gets into office again.
Faced with a heavy inflationary programme, these are the people who have suffered in the past and who will doubtless suffer the consequences in the future. We should be doing our duty well not only by calling attention to their needs, but by urging my right hon. Friend to give them even more generous assistance than he has been able to do in the Budget.

Mr. Barber: All the Amendments with which we have been dealing propose improvements in personal allowances. Those in the names of hon. Members of the Liberal Party propose increases in the single allowances, the maximum wife's earned income relief and the married man's allowance. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has tabled one Amendment, which is a little more restrained than those put down by the Liberal Party. His is concerned solely with the married man's allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has put down an even more restrained one, and I shall deal with that later on.
Before I come to the details of the Amendments I ought to remind the Committee, on this first debate on Clause 12, that my right hon. Friend has already proposed improvements in all these allowances, and some idea of the extent of the changes in personal allowances and reliefs generally can be gauged by the fact that their cost, coupled with the new scale of reduced rates, will be no less than £211 million in a full year.
It might be convenient to deal first with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sowerby. Before the Budget the married man's allowance was £240. My right hon. Friend proposes to increase it to £320. The hon. Member would go further. He suggests that it should be £350. As I understand it, he does not contend merely that the proposed new married allowance is too low; he also claims that it is out of line with the proposed new single allowance which my right hon. Friend has put forward. Indeed, the same point was made, in a rather different way, by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). It would be as well if I dealt with that point first.
At present the married allowance is £240, as compared with the single allowance of £140. Two single people, therefore, receive total allowances of £280, when the allowance for husband and wife is £240. It is argued, as I understand it, that the married man's position is worsened by my right hon. Friend's changes, because the allowances for two single people will now be £400, whereas the allowance for the married couple will be no more than £320—a difference of £80, as compared with the existing difference of £40. Another way of putting the point is to say that to raise the married man's allowance by only £80 a year, from £240 to £320, when the single person's allowance rises by £60, from £140 to £200, gives only one-third as much for a wife as for a single person. That was the way in which the hon. Member for Sowerby put the matter.
6.45 p.m.
If my right hon. Friend's proposals had amounted simply to an increase in the personal allowances there would be some force in the contention that the married man's increase, proportionately, had been

inadequate. But this is the wrong way to look at it. What is being done is to free all taxpayers from tax on the first £60 of their present taxable incomes, by absorbing the first reduced rate band in an improved personal allowance. On top of this the married man is given an extra £20 on his personal allowance. The important consequence of this series of changes is that in terms of reductions in tax payable, married men above a certain level of income will do more than twice as well as single men out of the changes as a whole. In considering all these allowances, while it is quite proper to consider the matter in isolation—and I appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Sowerby in asking us to do so—we must ascertain what the total effect of all the allowances to which a person would be entitled is likely to be on the tax which he will have to pay.
If I am right in thinking that the proposed relationship between the married allowance and the single allowance is not unreasonable, there remains the question whether, considered by itself, the married allowance should be increased. Personally, I should be delighted if it were, but I remind the Committee that the cost of the hon. Member's proposal would be no less than £97 million in a full year. I want to keep the temperature down. I do not want to go through the experience I had a few minutes ago, when the hon. Member spoke, but I would remind him that the Leader of the Opposition described the Budget as a glorious financial bonanza. What he would think of the hon. Member's profligate proposal to add another £80 million to this year's tax relief, I do not know, but the answer to the hon. Member, as to the hon. Member for Hudersfield, West, depends on one's judgment of the needs of the economy. Taking into account the various actions taken by my right hon. Friend before the Budget, including the substantial reductions in Purchase Tax—mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—he did not think that it would be in the general interest to go further, and certainly not to the extent proposed by the hon. Member.
What about the proposals contained in the Amendments put down by the Liberal Party? The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield,


West proposes to increase the married man's allowance to £390, which is £70 more than the £320 proposed by my Tight bon. Friend. The Amendment in line 39 proposes to increase the single man's allowance to £235, which is £35 more than the £200 proposed by my right hon. Friend, and the Amendment in line 42 proposes a corresponding increase of £35 in the maximum wife's earned income relief.
These proposals involve nothing so modest as that of the hon. Member for Soweby, which would cost a mere £97 million in a full year. Several hon. Members have asked what would be the cost of the Liberal Party's proposals. The additional cost of the reliefs proposed by that party would be no less than £315 million in a full year, and £252 million this year. To accept all the Amendments would bring the total cost of Budgetary concessions this year to no less than £520 million. That is quite a reduction in taxation.
I am not sure to what extent a Liberal Government would be bound by the annual Liberal Assembly, but at its last Assembly a Resolution was passed stating that it was
unrealistic to offer to reduce substantially the general level of taxation.
There was an Amendment, stating that
the reduction of taxation is essential to national prosperity,
but that Amendment was overwhelmingly defeated.

Mr. Wade: Last week I tabled a Question for a Written Answer in which I asked for figures. When I was speaking earlier this afternoon I did not know that the Answer had been sent to me. It has not reached me. But I think it fair to acknowledge the fact that the Answer has been sent. As I said in my speech, one has to consider the overall picture and one cannot consider a proposal such as this by itself. I should be out of order were I to give other facts and figures now which would have an effect on the overall total of reduced taxation.

Mr. Barber: It may well be that in the light of the figures which I have given, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that these are not Amendments which ought to be pressed at this time. However, we shall see. Having pointed that out,

I cannot believe that they should be taken seriously.
I should like, finally, to come to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West which is concerned with age relief and which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). I agree with practically every word said by my hon. Friends, and anyone who knows of the category of persons about which my hon. Friends were speaking will have great sympathy with them. I find considerable attraction in the proposal set out in my hon. Friend's Amendment, namely, that the income limit for age relief should be £1,000 instead of £900 as proposed by my right hon. Friend.
As some hon. Members will know, the age relief gives the equivalent of the two-ninths earned income relief on investment income to a taxpayer—if he has a wife living with him—who is 65 or over, provided that his total income does not exceed £800. That is the present position and the relief is meant to equate the liability of the taxpayer who, on retirement, has to live on a modest income from past savings, with that of the taxpayer who lives on a pension ranking for Income Tax purposes as earned income.
When the relief was introduced in 1925 the qualifying income limit was £500. The limit was raised to
£600 in 1953, to £700 in 1957, to £800 in 1958 and it is now to be raised, according to my right hon. Friend's proposal, to £900. I mention that because I think it right that the Committee should bear in mind that this relief which was not raised for twenty-five years has, during the past ten years, been raised four times. I think that shows pretty conclusively—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth who is very fair in these matters will agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, when talking of these people my hon. Friend is always fair, and I do not think that hon. Members opposite should jeer. I think that what I have said shows pretty conclusively that successive Conservative Chancellors, including my right hon. Friend, are alive to the benefit which this type of relief gives to old people. Of course—I should stress this—all those entitled to age relief


will, in any event, and quite apart from my right hon. Friend's proposal to increase the age relief from £800 to £900, benefit from the new general improvements in personal allowances. I am told that about 55,000 taxpayers will get the full relief as a result of the extension of the income limit proposed by my right hon. Friend and a further 80,000 will benefit from marginal relief.
As I have said, I think it important that taxpayers entitled to age relief will, along with all the others, benefit from the major changes in personal allowances. The benefit from the other changes and the increased income limit to a person entitled only to the single allowance will be no less than £28 17s. 2d. a year, that is to say, where he has income, drawn entirely from investment, of £900 a year. To a person with such an income entitled only to the married man's allowance, the

benefit will be £36 12s. 2d. I thought it right to give these two specific examples of maximum benefits because they show, I think, that considerable improvements for just these people will result when one takes into account not only the new limit for age relief but also the other personal allowances.

My right hon. Friend could not be present in the Chamber all the time because he was obliged to attend another meeting, but no doubt he will read what was said by my hon. Friend and bear in mind all that has been said on these matters today. In the light of the improvements already proposed in the Budget, I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment this year.

Question put: That "£320" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 227, Noes 166.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[6.57 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Critchley, Julian
Hobson, Sir John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Crosthwaklte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hocking, Philip N.


Arbuthnot, John
Cunningham, Knox
Holland, Philip


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Currie, G. B. H.
Hollingworth, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkins, Alan


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Dance, James
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Balniel, Lord
d' Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)


Barber, Anthony
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Barlow, Sir John
Dlgby, Simon Wingfield
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Barter, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Doughty, Charles
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Drayson, C. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bell, Ronald
du Cann, Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Duncan, Sir James
James, David


Berkeley, Humphry
Eden, Sir John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jennings, J. C.


Biggs-Davison, John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Bingham, R. M.
Errington, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Bishop, F. P.
Felt, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bourne-Arton, A.
Finlay, Graeme
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Braine, Bernard
Freeth, Denzil
Kimball, Marcus


Brewis, John
Gammons, Lady
Kirk, Peter


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Gardner, Edward
Kitson, Timothy


Brooman-White, R.
George, Sir John (Pollok)
Lambton, Viscount


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gibson-Watt, David
Leburn, Gilmour


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bullard, Denys
Glover, Sir Douglas
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Burden, F. A.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Longbottom, Charles


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Cary, Sir Robert
Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Walter H.


Channon, H. P. G.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaren, Martin


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Cleaver, Leonard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cooper, A. E.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Maccleaf'd)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cordle, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Corfield, F. V.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
McMaster, Stanley R.


Costain, A. P.
Hay, John
Maddan, Martin


Coulson, Michael
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maginnis, John E.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hendry, Forbes
Maitland, Sir John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenehawe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Crawley, Aidan
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas




Marten, Nell
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Pym, Francis
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Mawby, Ray
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Teeling, Sir William


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ramaden, James
Temple, John M.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Mlecampbell, Norman
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rees, Hugh
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Morgan, William
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Neave, Airey
Ridsdale, Julian
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Turner, Colin


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Roots, William
Vane, W. M. F.


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Oakehott, Sir Hendrie
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wakefield, Sir wavell


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Russell, Ronald
Walder, David


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Walker, Peter


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Shaw, M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Peel, John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Percival, Ian
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Speir, Rupert
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pilkington, Sir Richard
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pitman, Sir James
Stodart, J. A.
Woollam, John


Pitt, Dame Edith
Storey, Sir Samuel



Pott, Percivall
Studholme, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prior, J. M. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. MacArthur.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Dram, A. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Harper, Joseph
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pargiter, G. A.


Beaney, Alan
Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.


Bellengor, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Healey, Denis
Paton, John


Benson, Sir George
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Blackburn, F.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Blyton, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Boardman, H.
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Lelcs, S.W.)
Holman, Perey
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Boyden, James
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bray, Or. Jeremy
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, At. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Carmichael, Nell
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Cliffs, Michael
Jones, nt. Hn. A. Creech(Waketield)
Short, Edward


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefieid)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
King, Dr. Horace
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
McInnes, James
Stones, William


Dodds, Norman
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Swingler, Stephen


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Symonds, J. B.


Edelman, Maurice
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taverns, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Hess (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Marsh, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fitch, Alan
Millan, Bruce
Timmons, John


Fletcher, Eric
Milne, Edward
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wade, Donald


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Monslow, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Warbey, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, John
Watkins, Tudor


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Weitzman, David


George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Neal, Harold
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ginsburg, David
Oliver, G. H.
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
O'Malley, B. K.
Wilkins, W. A.







Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Winterbottom, R. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Woof, Robert



Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wyatt, Woodrow
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead.

It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the Proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House standing over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance.)

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

CHIEF ENAHORO

7.6 p.m.

Mr. T. Paget: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. George Brown: Mr. Speaker, before my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) starts his speech, may I raise a point of order with you? I have just learned, in the last few minutes, that at five o'clock this afternoon Chief Enahoro was refused access to his solicitors and that he learned through the prison machinery that he should be ready to leave on a plane which leaves England at 9.45 this evening.
I ask you: is there any way by which we can ensure that the Home Secretary does not authorise this man's departure at least until we finish this debate?

Mr. Speaker: That cannot be for me. I do not know whether the Home Secretary can help.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I wish to say that there is no truth whatever in the allegation that it is proposed to send Chief Enahoro out of this country before this House has come to a decision.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Paget: That at least is good news. It nonetheless remains a fact that throughout this afternoon Chief Enahoro has been held incommunicado and has not been allowed to provide the instructions or answer the questions which his solicitor wished to put to him and bring to us.
This story begins in Ireland, a civilised country which grants asylum to political refugees. From Ireland, Chief Enahoro

inquired whether he might safely come to this country. Believing that he had an assurance from the Home Office to that effect, he came. He was then arrested. The assurance proved to be a misunderstanding. He was brought before the courts on a warrant from Nigeria under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. The courts then had to decide two questions: whether there was a prima facie case of reasonable probability of guilt on the present charges against him and whether, in the Nigerian courts, he could expect a fair trial. The courts decided under Section 10, the magistrates, the Divisional Court and the House of Lords, those questions affirmatively. Neither of those questions has ever been in doubt.
The Fugitive Offenders Act provides that, after the decision of the court, a new discretion, to be exercised on other matters, resides in the Home Secretary. He had to decide on broad political lines whether returning this man to Nigeria was just. I submitted, and the Home Secretary subsequently agreed, that the things which he had to consider at that time were far wider than anything the courts had considered. He had to consider, for instance, whether the circumstances in which Enahoro had come here by mistake from Ireland, whoever was to blame, did not make it just to return him to Ireland from whence he came. He had to consider the political situation in Nigeria.
This is much wider than what the courts had to consider, because when all the leaders of the official Opposition are on charges of treason, what prospect of safety, even if he were acquitted by free and independent courts, would this man have in Nigeria? What chance would he have of again leaving Nigeria? These were things which the Home Secretary had to consider.
The right hon. Gentleman also had to consider the very broad question that when, in 1881, the Fugitive Offenders Act referred to treason, that was treason against a common Queen, a common Government of an imperial and colonial Power. The treason then contemplated


was certainly not a treason against a free and independent nation, such as Nigeria or Ghana.
All these things the Home Secretary had to consider. He admitted that he did not consider one of them. He came to his original decision, as he admitted in his statement to the House on 14th March, under he impression that all he had to do was to act as a court of appeal from the courts. So we start with the decision having been arrived at on wrong grounds and without considering the relevant grounds. All that was admitted.
I come now to the debate on 14th March, when the matter came before the House on the Consolidated Fund Bill. At that time, the Home Secretary agreed that he had to consider all these broader considerations, but none the less came, this time apparently on the right grounds and having considered the right things, to the same conclusion that he had come to when he first considered the wrong ones. Even then he was under a delusion as to what the Fugitive Offenders Act was. He was under the impression that this was an extradition Act covered by an extradition treaty which prohibited the putting of charges other than those for which the extradition had been obtained. Of course, it was no such thing. The Nigerian Government are perfectly free to put any charges they like. The Home Secretary also assured us on that occasion that there was no danger to Chief Enahoro of the death penalty.
The next point we came to was the assurances given by the Prime Minister when this matter was raised again and it was then pointed out that Chief Enahoro was, in fact, in danger of the death penalty. On that occasion, the Prime Minister gave a number of assurances of rising specificness as we went on that night. The final one which I will read to the House, is as follows:
The view of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it is a bad point; but I will give this assurance: we will not return Chief Enahoro until either this is shown by the lawyers, after consideration, to be a bad point, or, if it is held to be a good point, the Nigerian Government have given a definite undertaking that no charge will be brought against the Chief carrying the death penalty either now or at any other time.
That seems to me to be as clear a statement as I can make. The Chief wilt not be returned

to Nigeria until there is a definite undertaking from the Nigerian Government that this charge, if it carries the death penalty, is withdrawn and that no other charge that could carry the death penalty is substituted, or until the interpretation placed on this point by the right hon. Gentleman …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.]
I need not go on. Nothing could be clearer than those undertakings.
This is an assembly which may contain lawyers, but it is not an assembly of lawyers. We do not wish to chop logic here. The clear assurance being given to the House—what the Prime Minister intended and what the House understood—was an assurance that this man was not being returned if he were in danger of a capital sentence.
Nothing could have been made plainer in the next debate that ensued, because, as hon. Members are doubtless aware, the Prime Minister asked for that undertaking and that undertaking was refused by the Nigerian Government. This is what the Prime Minister had to say on 10th April, dealing with the possibility that other charges might be preferred:
Or, to put it another way, have we such lack of confidence that we fear that while getting this man back on one charge they would present another which would carry a capital punishment? Of course, this is theoretically possible.
Then the Prime Minister deals with some other matter. He says a little later:
First, it would mean that we regarded that Government as of such a character that we could have no faith in them at all—that it had become a tyranny of one man or one party, or because, in addition to the abandonment of constitutional and Parliamentary machinery, it had abandoned any freedom for the individual under the law.
A little later I interrupted the Prime Minister and said this:
Why does the Prime Minister suggest that it would be"—
the word "improbable" is printed, but that is obviously a misprint; it should be "improper"—
on behalf of the Nigerian Governent, having obtained the return of this man on one charge, to prefer another charge? When we obtain the return of somebody here by extradition proceedings we frequently prefer another charge and different charges. When magistrates commit a man for trial different charges are frequently preferred.
The Prime Minister replied:
In an extradition treaty that is exactly what we do not do. We have made complaints of other Governments that they have


done it and we have objected to a breach of the spirit of the treaty. It would be a very dishonourable thing to do to sot up these three charges and then not to try the man at all, or to shoot or hang him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,10thApril, 1963;Vol.675, c. 1291–2.]
That is what the Prime Minister said on 10th April, and the effect of that—what it was meant to be and what was understood by the House—was, "Well, although I have not got the undertaking that I asked for, the position is exactly the same as if I had got it. Of course, one can never be absolutely sure. They might break an undertaking, but they would be no more likely to break an undertaking than they would any other honourable procedure. It would be utterly dishonourable and improper of them to prefer a captail charge now."
After that, Chief Enahoro proceeded to apply for a writ of habeas corpus and the matter came before the Divisional Court. I should like to read from the proceedings in the Divisional Court. This is part of Chief Enahoro's address to the court, when asking for an adjournment in order to get additional evidence from Nigeria:
in addition to this affidavit, my Lord, further affidavit evidence is being obtained in Nigeria which not only supports this affidavit, but will also bring out further fresh evidence putting an entirely new complexion and character on the whole matter of the extradition proceedings against me. There is affidavit evidence in preparation both in Nigeria and in this country not only corroborating the evidence in this affidavit before you, but stating that the Government of Nigeria has prepared further or substituted charges against me which carry the death penalty.
A little later he says:
For these reasons, my Lord, I ask the court kindly to grant me an adjournment of 10 days to allow these new affidavits to arrive from Nigeria.
The court then discussed the reason he wanted the adjournment, and in the course of that discussion the Lord Chief Justice put to him this question, referring to the additional evidence that Chief Enahoro wanted to obtain from Nigeria:
It will also state that the Government are preparing other charges against you?
The Applicant: Yes, my Lord.
The Lord Chief Justice: That they are entitled to do?
The Applicant: I always understood, my Lord, that assurances had been given both in this court and another place that I was not going to face the death penalty.

The Lord Chief Justice: It has nothing to do with this court. It is for the Home Secretary.
In the judgment the Lord Chief Justice said:
With regard to preferring other charges, so far as this court is concerned the Nigerian Government are fully entitled to prefer what charges they like. This is not a case of the Extradition Act where a man can only be tried for offences for which he has been arrested without being sent back to his country, and accordingly the fact that other charges may be preferred against you cannot affect the matter at all. That is the position so far as the court is concerned.
As the Lord Chief Justice said, it is for the Home Secretary. Let us see what the Home Secretary did about this. Chief Enahoro applied, as he had the right to do, for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Our law and rules provide that a man preparing a petition for leave to appeal shall have 14 days in which to prepare his petition. It is not an unreasonable time, for this is a highly complicated and important matter, even for an Englishman here. But what about an African who is not a lawyer, who is advised only by a faithful band who, from a sense of justice, dedicated themselves to his cause, but not professionally advised, and having to communicate in person with Nigeria? Was 14 days too long for him? According to the Home Secretary, yes. He said, "You have four days. You have till Monday lunch-time to get this petition in."

Mr. Archie Manuel: Callous.

Mr. Paget: Frankly, I do not blame the Home Secretary for this. Doubtless, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had expressed his wishes. The Home Secretary is an obedient character. I do not blame him. I do not blame him any more than I blame a spaniel for licking its master's hand. It is the nature of the animal. I blame the Prime Minister for appointing such a man to such a post.
But let us see the position now. It is for the Home Secretary. The position at this stage is that the Nigerian Government are free to prefer, without any impropriety, as we do and as every other Commonwealth Government do, additional charges. There is no greater impropriety in their doing so than there would be if the Northampton police asked for a man to be sent to Northampton from


Birmingham on one charge and then had additional charges for him when he got to Northampton. This was in one empire. That is how this was arranged. This is what it meant.
The position today is that the Nigerian Government are free to prefer, without any impropriety, any further charges whether or not they carry the death penalty. They have refused the Prime Minister any undertaking not to do so. Secondly, Enahoro has reason to believe that additional charges are, in fact, to be preferred—capital charges—and has asked for time to obtain affidavits to this effect. The courts did not give him that time, and quite rightly. They were not concerned with this. It was irrelevant so far as they were concerned. The Nigerians, in law, are free to prefer any charges they like. But it is for the Home Secretary now.
I put this to the House. The least that we can now honourably ask is that the Prime Minister will repeat his undertaking that Chief Enahoro will not be returned unless there is an undertaking from the Nigerian Government that no additional or substituted charges carrying the death penalty will be preferred against him. That is the position as the Prime Minister thought it was last time he addressed us. We ask him—the House has the right to ask him—to be as good as his word.

7.29 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): I am sure that the principal anxiety of all hon. Members is: what will be the position of Chief Enahoro on his return to Nigeria and what is the position so far as any risk of a capital charge is concerned? That is the principal subject to which I shall address myself. But before I do so, I must deal with some of the matters which were raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Some of them we have debated a good deal already.
First, there was the question about the assurances that were given if Chief Enahoro came to this country from Ireland. It has been made perfectly clear by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that no such assurances were ever given by anybody on his behalf.
Secondly, there has again been raised today the matter of the meaning of the

1881 Act and how it should be applied in relation to political offenders within the Commonwealth—a matter which we debated at length on 10th April. It is quite untrue to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has ever admitted that in the first instance he was considering this matter on the wrong basis. He has never said anything of the sort.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question of the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the evening of 26th March. The Prune Minister dealt with this point at length upon 10th April and the House came to a decision upon it. Those assurances were plain. My right hon. Friend said:
The view of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it is a bad point"—
This was the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)—
but I will give this assurance: we will not return Chief Enahoro until either this is shown by the lawyers, after consideration, to be a bad point …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.]
And then he gave an alternative undertaking. As he explained on 10th April, as a result of the consideration that had been given he was satisfied, and I was satisfied, that that point was a bad point and it has not, I think, been substantially challenged and was not on 10th April.

Mr. G. Brown: It was indeed.

The Attorney-General: In those circumstances, it is quite wrong for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the Prime Minister ought to fulfil the second part of two alternative undertakings, when, as he explained on 10th April, the first part was in his view fulfilled.

Mr. G. Brown: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The Prime Minister did not in fact say that so long as he got "Hobson's ipse dixit" the second half of the undertaking did not apply. He said "If the lawyers on both sides agree". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Prime Minister said that. He identified my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), but in point of fact the lawyers on both sides never agreed; it became simply a Hobson's ipse dixit.

The Attorney-General: At a stage later, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Prime Minister expressed this in several ways.

Mr. Brown: He always does.

The Attarney-General: He said earlier:
until I am satisfied that either this charge is withdrawn, or our legal advisers and others tell me that the view just expressed is absolutely right beyond peradventure …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol 674, c. 1283.]
As I understand it, the only suggestion to the contrary was from one right hon. Gentleman opposite—he had some doubts about it—hut it really was not a subject of debate on 10th April.

Mr. Paget: Surely the point which we were considering and on which we wanted assurance was the quite simple one whether Chief Enahoro was in danger on a capital charge if he went back to Nigeria. That was the point. It has now been decided, I should have thought by every lawyer, that he quite plainly is in danger.

The Attorney-General: That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is, however, as I have said, the point to which I am coming and with which I will deal later in my speech if the House will allow me. Before I come to that position, there is one other point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.
He said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had behaved disgracefully or had not behaved in a satisfactory manner in the matter of the time for appeal. There is no Statute which says that there has to be an appeal within 14 days. The Statute says—"unless you do appeal within 14 days you shall not have an appeal at all." [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will debate the matter quietly.

The Attorney-General: And Mr. Speaker, I was just going to add, which is of course a material point and not a technical legal point, the solicitors acting for Chief Enahoro informed the Home Secretary that they would lodge the Petition by 2.30 on Monday if he was prepared to give an assurance that Chief

Enahoro would not be returned. It was in those circumstances that my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman knows the rule of the House. If the Minister speaking does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General rose—

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rather assumed that the Attorney-General had given way. I had no wish to show disrespect to the Chair or to infringe the rules of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad to understand that it was due to an error of judgment of the situation and not to some attempt to defy the practice of the House.

Mr. Thorpe: Mr. Thorpe rose—

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not wish to have to remind the hon. Gentleman again.

The Attorney-General: I come then to the principal point which, of course, is the main anxiety of all Members of the House, and that is what the position will be when Chief Enahoro returns to Nigeria, if he does. The suggestion is that there is now evidence—and this, as I understand it, is the basis upon which you, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon gave your permission for this Adjournment debate to take place—that there was new evidence on the way that the Nigerian Government intends to add a charge carrying the death penalty.
This, of course, is a matter of great seriousness and I know that the House will want to consider what is the position in that regard. It is a rather odd suggestion that at this stage, after five months of these proceedings, there should suddenly appear this new evidence which is to come and which has not yet been received. We are not told anything about its source or its origin or its veracity, except that it was said by the Chief himself addressing the Divisional Court. He did not before the


Divisional Court produce any evidence to that effect. He did not suggest that he had any material to lay before the Divisional Court, and it would be surprising indeed if he was to have available to him what, after all, can only be information about the intentions of the prosecuting authorities in Nigeria, because the relevant point is what the prosecuting authorities in Nigeria intend to do so far as laying or proceeding upon charges when he finally returns.
Affidavits were put in before the Divisional Court, and today before the other House, which did suggest that Chief Enahoro's advisers were going to Nigeria in order to get additional information which they wished to lay before the courts. But nothing was said that such additional information would have anything to do with the death penalty. His advisers did say that they were trying to obtain additional evidence similar to, and for exactly similar purposes as, the evidence which was already before the courts; but this, of course, was material which had nothing whatever to do with the death penalty, and there was no suggestion in any of the affidavit evidence put in that the Chief might be able to obtain evidence about additional charges—either that there were any additional charges or that they would be capital charges.
As is well known, the present proceedings which are going on in Nigeria are against a great number of accused. I think that there were 31 in all. All the proceedings relate to a single conspiracy, and it is exactly the same conspiracy now being tried in Nigeria which concerns Chief Enahoro. There is no doubt that, had Chief Enahoro and three others been in Nigeria at the beginning of those proceedings, they would have been brought before the courts in exactly the same way as Chief Awolowo, for the same conspiracy and on the same charges. It was only for the reason that those four persons happened not to be there that it was necessary to begin the other trial and to seek the return of Chief Enahoro under the Fugitive Offenders Act.
It would be surprising if, having started on one conspiracy with charges against the principal, Chief Awolowo, and not having made a capital charge,

the authorities in Nigeria should later—having intended orginally to charge them all together and having, in fact, charged one conspiracy—proceed against the lieutenant upon a completely different basis.
I respectfully submit to the House that it is inconceivable that the prosecuting authorities would proceed against the principal conspirator before courts which had not the power to pass a capital sentence and then proceed against the lieutenant and others upon a completely different basis.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Why is the Attorney-General prejudging this?

The Attorney-General: In my respectful submission, what is happening is that, as my right hon. Friend said on the last occasion, the Nigerian prosecuting authorities are being charged with a breach of faith in asking for the return of Chief Enahoro upon non-capital charges when they really intended to add capital charges. This cannot be acceptable. The other view is that, knowing the interest of this House in the death penalty, following with the greatest closeness all the debates in this House, and following everything which has been said, they have now formed the intention—of which evidence will, it is said, be produced—to add other charges without ever informing Her Majesty's Government or making any public declaration of the sort. I respectfully submit that this is highly improbable.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General has twice in our hearing referred to Chief Enahoro as a lieutenant of a man who is at present standing trial. Since this matter is, presumably, sub judice in the Nigerian courts, has the hon. and learned Gentleman any right to prejudge the issue by saying that a particular accused is or is not a lieutenant in a conspiracy?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that our sub judice rule does not apply to that kind of tribunal.

The Attorney-General: In any event, it is perfectly clear on the evidence and the facts as everyone knows them about the Action Group that Chief Awolowo was the principal in the matters which are being investigated and Chief Enahoro was not.
However much one may consider these hypothetical reasons and other reasons as to whether or not there will be charges added, I ought to inform the House that I thought it desirable, after the hon. and learned Member for Northampton had informed the House that this evidence was on the way—evidence which it seemed to me incredible could be available—to check the likely veracity of it.
Since you ordered the Adjournment Motion, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the telephone with Dr. Elias, who is Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Nigeria and the Minister responsible in Nigeria for the director of public prosecutions and for all proceedings on prosecutions in Nigeria. I told him that it was being alleged that there was an intention that, if Chief Enahoro returned to Nigeria, further charges would be added or substituted. He was astounded and astonished when I told him that. He said that it was definitely untrue that there was any intention at all by him as the prosecuting authority to add any new charges or to depart at all from the charges for which Chief Enahoro's return was asked in the proceedings at Bow Street, the three charges of which we know. He reiterated to me that he has no intention of departing from those three charges in the prosecution of Chief Enahoro on his return.

Mr. Paget: If that be so, will the Attorney-General ask the Nigerian Government to give that undertaking? Then our problem is solved.

The Attorney-General: I should have thought that the statement of the Attorney-General of Nigeria as to his intentions would be perfectly satisfactory to any reasonable Member of the House. I should be very surprised indeed if some person from another Commonwealth country, were to ring me up and ask not only what my intentions were but whether I would give undertakings as to the future. Nothing could be more explicit than what the Attorney-General said about his intentions, of which I have informed the House. He said that there is no intention whatever in him as prosecuting authority to add any new charges at all—not only capital ones but any other charges.

Mr. G. Brown: This changes the tenor of the debate. This was the undertaking asked for on the first occasion when the

House had to dissolve in some disorder while a Cabinet meeting was going on on the Front Bench opposite. We asked for that undertaking. Ministers subsequently came to the House and said that the Nigerian Government refused, indignantly, to give such assurances and saw no reason why they should, saying that, as a sovereign member of the Commonwealth, they should not be asked for them. That is what the Prime Minister reported to us.
The Prime Minister was unable to get the assurances. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies was unable to get the assurances. The Attorney-General is now telling us that, in the course of an ad hoc telephone conversation, he got them. Will the Attorney-General now be quite categorical about it? Is he telling the House that the Government of Nigeria have this afternoon given the assurances which they have hitherto refused to give?

The Attorney-General: I must make this perfectly clear. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it is important to be clear on a matter of this sort.
First, no undertaking has been given by the Nigerian Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not the function of the Nigerian Government; it is the Attorney-General who discharges these functions, as I do. Second, I did not think it right or proper or necessary to ask whether he would give me an undertaking. I asked whether the allegation of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that there was now an intention to make an alteration and proceed upon different charges was true. He informed me that he had no intention whatever of departing from the present position. I respectfully submit that that is a perfectly satisfactory situation upon which any sensible and reasonable Member of the House could rely.

Mr. G. Brown: May I press the Attorney-General about this? Is he telling the House that this was a statement of the personal view of the Minister of Justice or that it is the view of the Government? Does not he see that, if it is the personal view of a colleague given to him over the telephone, it does not affect the argument, hut, if it is a statement of the Government, it does? If it was not


the view of the Government, what is the value of his remark?

The Attorney-General: As I understand the position, the duties of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Nigeria are similar, as regards prosecutions, to those of the Attorney-General in this country. He is not in that respect a member of the Government who does what the Government tells him. He has a separate quasi-judicial responsibility for deciding when he will prosecute, and it is his sole responsibility.
This is well understood, and the Nigerian system, as I understand it, is modelled on, and is intended to copy, our system. It is not for the Nigerian Government to decide these matters, and it certainly was not my intention to ask the Attorney-General of Nigeria to give me any undertaking or, least of all, to give one on behalf of the Nigerian Government. He is the responsible Minister. He has told us his intentions, and all I submit is that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that new evidence is on the way, that there is an intention now to add charges, is completely wrong.

Mr. John Hynd: Is it not the case that when Chief Enahoro was in Ireland he or his representatives telephoned our Home Office asking for certain assurances and was given these assurances, and that when he came here he found that the assurances were wrong, which, we ware told in this House, was due to a misunderstanding? Is not this relevant to the new position?

The Attorney-General: This was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 21st March, when he made it clear that he had investigated most carefully what had been said, and it was plain that nobody on behalf of the Home Office had given any such undertaking.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Attorney-General centred the whole of his case to the House during the last few minutes on the conversations which he had with the Attorney-General of Nigeria. It is a very peculiar situation, because we had controversy in the House in previous debates about what were the undertakings which might be given from Nigeria. I wonder why the Attorney-

General did not ring up the Attorney-General in Nigeria before. Why did not he have a telephone conversation with the Attorney-General when we were having the debate on 27th March? If it was so easy to settle the matter, why did the Prime Minister come to the House and say, "We must make representations to the Nigerian Government through the High Commissioner"?
If it was all so easy to get an undertaking of this character by a telephone conversation, it seems that the Attorney-General has left it very late in the day. After what has happened in all these debates, I do not believe that the House will be content to rely on the assurances which the Attorney-General has given to the House, because there have been so many misunderstandings in this case ever since the original misunderstanding about Chief Enahoro's arrival in this country.
What we are discussing is the conduct of Her Majesty's Government and not assurances given by the Nigerian Government. We are discussing the action of the Home Secretary. The Attorney-General astonished the House, I think, by saying that the Prime Minister had not given an undertaking to this House that Chief Enahoro would not be sent back to Nigeria if there was any danger of his being threatened with a capital sentence. He seemed to be trying to escape from the obligation that the Prime Minister had undertaken. Why should he try to quibble about the Prime Minister's pledge by saying that inquiries would be made as to whether the legal point was a good one or a bad one? Only if it was settled in a fashion adverse to the Government would the other consideration arise. The Attorney-General nods.
I wander that the Attorney-General did not take the trouble to read the Prime Minister's speech. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) quoted one part of the Prime Minister's speech which might be open to the interpretation given by the Attorney-General if one stretched it a long way. The Prime Minister said:
The Chief will not be returned to Nigeria until there is a definite undertaking from the Nigerian Government that this charge, if it carries the death penalty, is withdrawn and that no other charge that could carry the


death penalty is substituted, or until the interpretation placed on this point by the right hon. Gentleman is shown by the lawyers to he incorrect …
It is on that last part of the sentence that the Attorney-General has based his claim. But he should have read on a bit further. If he had done so he would have seen that the Prime Minister made the pledge absolutely clear. There could not possibly have been any doubt about it. In the last sentence that the Prime Minister uttered to the House before he moved the Adjournment of the debate he said:
If that is the view of the House, and it would make it easier for the House for me to do so, I am ready to move that we should now adjourn the debate, it being understood that it is not the wish of the Government, or of the House, that there should be any circumstances in which this man should be subject to danger of his life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286].
That was the pledge given to the House. There could not be anything clearer. That is why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton was right in saying that the first thing which is involved is the honour and word of the Prime Minister himself. I must say that grave doubts are cast upon it when the Attorney-General does not even repeat the pledge at the beginning of his speech.
If the Attorney-General was so confident about the second piece of information which he was going to give about his conversation with the Attorney-General of Nigeria, why should he worry about trying to quibble? Why should he try to crawl out of it? The reason that he wanted to crawl out of it is that he knows that it is just conceivable—I do not say likely—that when Chief Enahoro returns something may go wrong and he may be charged with a capital charge.
If that happened, it would, of course, be clear to all the world that the Prime Minister's word had been dishonoured. Therefore, the Attorney-General, in his speech today, wanted to qualify the Prime Minister's pledge. There was no purpose in what he said otherwise. To anyone who can read plain English it is clear that the pledge was given in absolute terms.
One of the problems in dealing with this case ever since the beginning has been that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have approached it from quite

different points of view, particularly on the issue of the capital charge. The Home Secretary has claimed from the beginning of these debates to the end that the question of the capital charge never came into it. He said in the first debate that it had nothing to do with it. He did not interpolate in that sentence that if it did have something to do with it it would make a difference. He just said that it did not arise, and that has been his position from the beginning to the end of these debates. Under the Fugitive Offenders Act, it was immaterial, in the way that he has interpreted it, whether there was a capital charge or not.
However, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, when they came along to rescue the Home Secretary in the debate on 26th March, took a quite different view. The Attorney-General said:
But I am authorised by the Prime Minister to say that the Government will not in any circumstances send back Chief Enahoro until this point has been cleared up between the legal advisers …"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 26th March. 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1282.]
The Prime Minister went on to make the same pledge in the terms which I have given.
What right had the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister to make any of those pledges to this House if the original claim of the Home Secretary was correct? The Home Secretary has said from the beginning of this dispute to the end, "This is a matter which rests solely with me. It is a judicial decision". In the debate on 10th April this was his final claim. He said just before the vote took place—and he said it more than once—that it was his decision and no one else's and that no one else could take the decision for him.
… despite the totally unfounded allegations of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Page). …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 1362.]
If no one else could take the decision from the Home Secretary, what right had the Attorney-General to say, "I will give a promise that if the capital sentence applies it will not happen."? What right had the Prime Minister to make such a pledge if the sole decision rested with the Home Secretary? It is one way or the other. Who does take the decision? The Home Secretary claims that he is acting on judicial grounds, that he is acting


justly and that in his mind the question of a capital sentence has not arisen from the beginning to the end of these debates.
I have never seen a Minister so humiliated as was the Home Secretary in the debate on 27th March, when he had his whole case denied by the intervention of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. After that debate the only proper course for the Home Secretary—indeed, I thought that it would happen—was for him to resign.
Here was the Home Secretary saying that this was a judicial matter. He was pushed aside in debate, first, by the Attorney-General and then by the Prime Minister. Are we now to be told that none of the other members of the Cabinet has ever discussed the question? Has it never been discussed in the Cabinet? Why is the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations so assiduous in his attention to these debates? Everybody knows that this matter was discussed in the Cabinet. Everybody knows that political considerations of the widest aspect were brought in to help determine the decision. Indeed, this has been made clear in the Prime Minister's contributions to the previous debates. The Cabinet has taken all these factors into account.
Therefore, when the Home Secretary knows those to be the circumstances, when he knows the pressures to which he is subjected and when he knows that he is submitted to them even though he claims that it is absolutely wrong that he should be, what right has he to have any further say in the matter? The Home Secretary should have resigned on 27th March and left the Cabinet to settle the matter if they were going to do so.
For the Home Secretary still to claim, as, apparently, he does, that he is solely concerned with the justice of the case when he has been subjected to these political pressures is to dishonour the whole process of judicial decisions or so-called quasi-judicial decisions by Government Departments and by Home Secretaries. Nobody again can believe the word of the Home Secretary when he says that he has taken a judicial decision, because everybody in the world knows that in this case he has done nothing of the kind.
There is a further factor. At the start of this debate, my hon. and learned

Friend the Member for Northampton listed all the considerations which the Home Secretary could have had in mind and which he had set aside. There have been many other considerations since. We are playing cat and mouse with this poor man. The Attorney-General may be correct in saying that no further information is coming from Nigeria, but nobody can trust the Attorney-General's interventions in these matters. He has not been correct on the law, so he may not be correct on the information.
Therefore, looking at all these circumstances, when we start from the proposition that there is an overwhelming case in humanity that the man should have a right to stay here on the simple grounds of political asylum, when we remember the whole squalid, miserable story that has gone on and how the Government have been more concerned throughout this dispute to rescue their own prestige than to look after the rights of one man, I say that if the Home Secretary is determined to persist in his job and send this man back to Nigeria, whether tonight, tomorrow, or whenever it may be—I am not sure what the timetable is—he will never have the right to lift up his face again in the House of Commons.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: This is the third occasion on which I have been fortunate enough to speak in the House on this subject and I make no apology for doing so again. I maintain that this man's life is at stake and I have maintained it from the outset. This is really the last chance that his case has of being heard in what is virtually the highest court in the land.
It is a fine thing that we are tonight still debating the case of Chief Enahoro. I know that a certain amount of difficulty has been caused with the rearrangement of business, and it is not always expedient that the timetable should be changed, but it is very proper that we should still be considering whether this man's life is at stake, whereas if the Adjournment of the House had not been moved he might well have been on an aircraft tonight, winging his way to Lagos under heavily armed guard.
As the House knows, I have been closely involved in this case right from


the start, because Enahoro is a temporary constituent of mine. I will not go through all the details again—some of them have been enumerated by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—but over and above the speeches which I have already been fortunate enough to contribute on this subject, I have felt throughout the importance of the fact that the evidence of brutality which was subsequently available did not come before the court at the magisterial hearing back in November, or when the appeal was heard in January. I believe that this was of material consideration. Had that evidence of brutality been available then, the decision on the part of the magistrates and of the judges who decided the case might have been very different indeed.
I am positive that we ought now to receive a clear-cut and thorough undertaking from the Nigerian Government that the death penalty is not involved. I respect what my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has said about this, and I am sure that in his mind he is satisfied with the assurance which has been given to him by the Attorney-General of Nigeria, but this is far too important a matter for there to be any doubt.
I am convinced that in an issue which has become as vital as this, nothing short of a categorical pledge at this time by the Nigerian Government to our Government would suffice. I am certain that if the Government reflect on this, they will realise that this is what ought to be done. As a consequence, they ought to give an undertaking not to return Chief Enahoro to Nigeria until they receive that assurance from the Nigeriap Government.

Mr. Julian Snow: Are we not also entitled to know whether the specific question was put by our Attorney-General to the Nigerian Attorney-General whether the death penalty was or was not involved under the charges which were originally heard at Bow Street?

Mr. Smith: I agree with the hon. Member that is an important point.
It is a grave thing to say, but it has to be said, that one is forced to ask how valid are the assurances which are

made by Nigeria, bearing in mind the fact that this is obviously a political matter. It always has been a political matter. It is a political charge which Enahoro faces and when he gets back he will be treated as a political fugitive. That is why I make tonight a last plea for clemency on the part of the Government for Chief Enahoro.
I was present this afternoon in the Appeals Committee of the House of Lords and was tremendously impressed with the bearing of this man and with the way he conducted his own case. I believe that he is entitled to clemency from this House. I make this final plea on three main grounds. First, there are serious doubts about the validity of the evidence which has been presented at the various court hearings. Secondly, all the facts were not before the court when his original application for release was refused. Thirdly, even after what has been said tonight, there are still some doubts as to whether his life will he at stake when he returns.
The political situation in Nigeria must always be taken into account when one is considering a case of this sort. I am not an expert on Nigerian affairs, I have not studied them closely, although over the past few weeks I have made it my business to get as much material as possible from Nigerian sources. Only today, news reached me that four senior members of the Action Group, which is Enahoro's political party, including its federal treasurer, have had their passports impounded without any reasons being given. Three other leading imetnhers of the Action Group—Rewane, Shonibare and Lanlehin—have all had their property and belongings in the Western Region listed for compulsory acquisition, again, I understand, without any particular reason being given. Surely, this is a fair indication that political pressure is present in Nigeria. This adds materially to the whole suspicious climate which surrounds the Enahoro affair.
I have always believed right from the start that a strong, steady and rather relentless atmosphere of political pressure was being applied by a Government to an Opposition, and it has been applied all the way through from the start of the Enahoro case.
We must ask ourselves how valid is the evidence on which the magistrate's court, and, later, the Divisional Court, decided that there was a prima facie case for Enahoro to answer when he got back home. Last November when he was before the magistrate's court, and later in January, some of the most material witnesses had not then given evidence in the treason trial.
However fair the Nigerian Judiciary—and I am quite prepared to believe it is fair, having heard in previous debates that it is above suspicion—it is still Enahoro's major submission that the evidence against him has in many instances been obtained by threat and by force. He fears for his life as a result of these activities. He feared for his life when first I met him. He feared for his life when we had our previous debates, and today, after the dismissal of his petition before the Appeals Committee of the House of Lords, he again fears for his life.
I and many others on both sides of the House over the past weeks and months have waded through pages and pages of evidence, of affidavits and of transcripts, and throughout those pages there stalks a rather sinister figure, the figure of Assistant Superintendent of Police Ceulman, a naturalised Briton and former Afrikaaner, who, despite persistent challenges by the defence, has failed to be produced in the treason trials in Lagos. This man Ceulman apparently has been one of the chief people in charge of obtaining evidence and conducting interrogations of witnesses material to the treason trials in Lagos. Ceulman himself has never refuted the charges of brutality made against him nor, as far as I am aware, have any of the other material witnesses in the case.
I shall not weary the House with a large number of quotations because this is only a brief debate, but I think it is vitally important that I should give a few short quotations from the actual transcripts of the trial which has been going on at Lagos. First, I deal with this gentleman, Ceulman. The first piece from the transcript concerns Mr. Umoren, a Member of Parliament, who was called to give evidence and who was a defendant. He said, among other things:
Before the statement I was with Ceulman

alone. He said this was a serious matter, the Prime Minister had given them full powers. When I entered the room Mr. Ceulman showed me a revolver. He said every senior police officer had been given a revolver and that with that weapon he had subdued others. He would advise me to save myself from being shot. In Mr. Ceulman's office before Ceulman began to issue his threats Mr. Sullivan came in and said that the Government was considering amending the law to make the offence punishable by death.
Another witness, Mr. Akinsanya, a barrister who was a defendant and conducted his own defence, said he was handed over to Ceulman and he said in the course of his evidence:
Ceulman said he thought I would help the police by giving them information about arms and munitions. He then started to tell me he was a soldier in the latest war and he said that he interviewed German war criminals. He said although Germans were sturdy men, he broke them. He then referred to the political situation in the country and said that the Southern leaders were no good and it was the N.P.C. which was good. He said Onitiri had been released and that the police had a bargain with him and that I too would be released if I helped the police. I told him I was not interested.
The third quotation concerns Mr. J. S. Tarka, the leader of the United Middle Belt Congress in the North, a body which was associated with the Action Group. He said in the course of his evidence that he had been interrogated and kept in custody. He said:
I said I was hungry and tired, but he said he would give me everything I wanted if I co-operated with him. He said he had instructions from the Prime Minister not to prosecute any Northerner unless such Northerner did not co-operate. He said that with Mr. Ceulman I had an appointment with a midnight bride. He said if I did not co-operate I would be treated like Patrice Lumumba who disappeared in the Congo because he did not co-operate with the British. For the first time in my life I was scared.
One is entitled to ask in hearing evidence of this sort if this man Ceulman is innocent, if this man is more sinned against than sinning, because it is not unknown for allegations to be made against police officers and against interrogators. Therefore, I think this particular evidence can be highly suspect unless there is some form of corroboration of the kind of man Ceulman was. Only two days ago an affidavit was sworn in this country by a highly respectable man, Mr. Malcolm Robert Alexander Matthew, of Jocelyn Road, Richmond, Surrey, Mr. Matthew was from 19th November, 1960, to 18th January, 1961, an intelligence


officer with the 5th Battalion of the Queen's Own Nigerian Regiment stationed at Bukavu in Kivu Province of the Congo.
In his affidavit he said:
During the said stay in Bukavu it was one of my duties to visit the gaol there in an attempt to secure the release of various persons imprisoned there without justification. Many of these persons had been beaten and otherwise maltreated and a number had as a result become hospital cases. Some of these cases had been the victims of a calculated sadism which I verily believe was not typical of the Congolese and I formed the opinion that there was an influence at work which was probably white. Upon inquiry my colleagues and I were told by the police in charge of the gaol that three white men were responsible for the above-mentioned atrocities. We were told by the police officer in charge of the police station attached to the gaol that Ceulman was one of the aforesaid three white men. This police officer pointed out to us Ceulman, who was in the room at the time. The said Ceulman, who was in the room at the time, was short. stocky, fair-haired and almost a hunch-back.
This is the description of the man who conducted the interrogations before the Lagos treason trial. Ceulman appears to have been a leading light in all the police inquiries surrounding the Enahoro case.
Having read so much about it, having read this further evidence, I have the very gravest doubts about the evidence which is being presented in this treason trial. Ceulman has, of course, interrogated at least two of the main deponents against Enahoro whose evidence was produced in the courts here when it was decided that he should be extradited. This evidence is evidence which still stands and which will be used against him if ultimately he is returned.
Two material witnesses in the case against Enahoro have, after eight months' detention, now been released on bail pending their giving evidence in the case against Enahoro on his return. One might imagine from the fact that they have been in detention for eight months that the charge against them is one of treason. But the charge against them is not treason; the charge is of theft. Surely it is almost incomprehensible in any country which tries to carry on a democracy that anyone should await trial on charges of theft for something like eight months without actually appearing in court. These two gentlemen are Mr. Oboh and Mr. Olearie and the deduction to he made is absolutely obvious when one remembers they are to give evidence against Enahoro.
I think it is quite true to say that more evidence is likely to come over on Enahoro's behalf because two of his friends, one of them a legal adviser, flew back to Lagos within the last week. They hope shortly to be able to produce some further evidence in this country if their friend by then has not been extradited. It could have come in time for his last petition had the full fourteen days been granted, but as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the deadline imposed was 2.30 on Monday afternoon.
As a consequence his solicitors had to work extremely hard over the whole weekend. This does not just concern the presentation of one petition. There need to be dozens of extra copies which have to be filed, under law, and I am instructed that the solicitor advising Enahoro was unable to brief counsel, unable to get the help of anybody over the weekend to appeal in this case and as a result Enahoro had to appear and defend himself.
Enahoro has always thought that he was in danger of death, and I think that in this he is utterly sincere. This has not been merely a blind to try to get him off, or to create the various delays which we have suffered over the past five or six months. There have been important reasons at each stage. I believe that this mart genuinely fears for his life through either judicial execution or something more sinister happening to him on his return to Nigeria. He thought so when I took up his case originally, and he still thinks so today.
Finally—I will not go on any longer because there are others who wish to make contributions to the debate—I would say that this has become a very celebrated case indeed. It is a case which is probably unique in the annals of this Parliament. It is a case in which there are tremendous principles at stake. This has been emphasised previously, and we cannot emphasise it too greatly. The case has caused the Government a good deal of unnecessary trouble and put them in an extremely difficult position which is not really of their own making. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that there are feelings on this, but I am here expressing my own personal opinion.
The Home Secretary has had one of the most unenviable tasks which has


ever befallen any Minister for years in deciding what should happen to Chief Enahoro. I believe that my right hon Friend has decided wrongly. He believes, and the majority of the Government believe, that he has acted rightly. But he has acted fearlessly, and as a result I dissociate myself from the attacks made on him. He has done everything he has done on points of principle and to the best of the information available to him. But I believe that he was wrong from the start and that he is still wrong today.
Chief Enahoro has conducted himself throughout these proceedings with the utmost dignity and with utter brilliance in his personal performances in our courts. We must remember that he is not an Englishman. He is a Nigerian, and has had no legal training. I believe that this should count in his favour.
I submit that this House would win most tremendous public approval if it said that, because of the real and genuine doubts in the welter of evidence that has been put forward, and after six months of arguing in the Law Courts and Parliament, Chief Enahoro should go free or should at least go back to Eire whence he came to this country. This could be Parliament as its best and greatest. Whatever we may think about Parliament, and we know it is concerned primarily with the day-to-day running of the country, this is what it really exists for—the preservation of the individual liberty of the subject.
I believe that democracy will always flourish when officialdom can say, "Perhaps we were wrong. We will now, even at this stage, give this man the benefit of the doubt." I believe that this is what should happen tonight. I believe that this honourable House is in a position to grant direct mercy to Chief Enahoro, and I believe most sincerely that it should now go ahead and grant that mercy.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: It is most unfortunate that this case has been discussed so much in the law courts and not nearly enough in this House on the main principle at stake, namely, that this is a political case involving a political trial in Nigeria for a man who is sub-

ject, in his submission—and, in my opinion, his submission is correct—to the danger of political oppression.
It is not simply a criminal case which has been brought against him. If he had been—we should return to this point again and again—a Frenchman, a German, an Italian, a Paraguayan, or any other nationality than a member of a Commonwealth country, he would not have been returned to face trial. Therefore, I think that we must get back to the basic issue in this last debate that the House may have on this case to prevent this man being sent back to stand political trial.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if Chief Enahoro had been any of those nationalities, he would not have been in this country at all?

Mr. Stonehouse: Chief Enahoro had gone to Ireland and had come to this country from Dublin, and it would be perfectly possible for a citizen of any other country to have come here in circumstances similar to those of Chief Enahoro. Indeed, there have been other cases of men who have been subject to political oppression who have come here and have obtained political asylum. It would be a very sorry thing if in a political case being pursued in a Commonwealth country we drew a distinction in the way that is apparently now being done.
Chief Enahoro has said:
The offences with which I am charged are offences of a political character. My return to Nigeria is sought by the Federal Government as part of a plan, which has been pursued relentlessly since the Federal Government was formed by a coalition of the N.P.C. and N.C.N.C. parties in December, 1959, to destroy the Action Group as an effective political opposition. I am not a fugitive from justice but a fugitive from political oppression.
I do not wish, and I do not think the House would wish, to enter into a debate as to the merits or demerits of the political confusion in Nigeria, but in any case in the past involving a foreigner asking for political asylum on this sort of ground, we have invariably allowed him the benefit of the doubt and have given him political asylum or allowed him to go somewhere where he would nave that asylum.
Public opinion has been most disturbed


by this whole case in the last six months. Newspapers almost unanimously are asking that Chief Enahoro should be allowed to stay here or to go to another country of his choice. We had The Times writing:
The whole embarrasing affair has indicated how urgent is the need to amend the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to bring the extradition arrangements between Commonwealth countries into line with those between other independent sovereign states.
The Act must be amended. Would it be fair to amend the Act and not to allow the man who gave rise to all this debate the right to stay here under an amended Act? As the Guardian said in April:
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that Chief Enahoro would not be extradited unless it was clear 'beyond peradventure' that the death penalty did not apply. The doubt remains.
This is what was written in April. The doubt still remains. The Guardian went on:
This is awkward and embarrassing for the Government, and one may sympathise with Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Brooke and Sir John Hobson in the difficulty that confronts them. But to send Chief Enahoro back now, after the delay has done its damage, would be to make matters worse. The proper course is to promise an early amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Act and to say that, meanwhile, Chief Enahoro will be allowed to remain here—in better surroundings than Brixton prison.
The Daily Telegraph said:
The Attorney-General may well be right in law, the Crown Counsel mistaken. But there seems to be at the very least an element of doubt, of which Chief Enahoro should surely receive the benefit.
This is practically the unanimous expression of opinion in the Press—Conservative, Labour and Liberal. Public opinion generally believes that this man should be allowed to stay here or at least to go to another country where he should be free.
In the face of all these expressions of public opinion, the Government are determined to send him back, not in order to do justice to him, not to improve relations between the Nigerians and ourselves—they are already intolerably bad because of the way the Government have mishandled this affair—but in order to protect their prestige. That is what is at stake.
It is in order to protect the prestige of the Home Secretary and of the Prime Minister in particular that this man has

to be returned. The Prime Minister has made a statement in the House which apparently he is not prepared to honour. The whole circumstances lend very little credit not only to the Home Secretary but to the Prime Minister himself, for he gave a pledge on 26th March that the Nigerian authorities would be asked for an assurance that this man would not be subject to the death penalty. But tonight the Attorney-General has confirmed that that assurance has not yet been received.
A minor but very important point is that of the assurance which the Home Secretary's officials gave to Chief Enahoro's friend when he telephoned the Department and asked whether the Chief would be free from arrest if he came to this country, first from Ghana and then from Dublin. In fact, there was not one telephone conversation but three. This series of conversations was entered into after Chief Enahoro's friend had consulted his lawyers.
This, I believe, deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who interjected during one of our debates to say that it would have been better for the Chief to have co insulted a lawyer rather than somebody else. Chief Enahoro's lawyers were consulted, and it was because of the need for quick and speedy action that Messrs. Slaughter and May—I am authorised to disclose their names—asked the Chief's friend to telephone the Home Office and seek this assurance. This, the friend did on three occasions. Only on one occasion was he told that the Fugitive Offenders Act might apply and that therefore another inquiry might be made. That is at least what the Home Secretary has said took place. But Chief Enahoro's friend says that he consulted Messrs. Slaughter and May on 10th October, but did not follow up a suggestion made to him in a telephone conversation with the Department that he should talk to a Mr. Morris, the official responsible for the Fugitive Offenders Act, because no such suggestion was made. Ha says:
I did not follow up the suggestion to talk to Mr. Morris because, in fact, no suggestion was made that I should. There was only the merest mention of Morris. I insist that I was given assurance that Enahoro would be safe from arrest, otherwise I would be a fool and a knave to recommend to Enahoro that he should come to this country.


That is the understanding that Enahoro's friend had, and this statement was made by him after his interview with the Home Secretary. He does not agree that the matter was cleared up after discussion with the right hon. Gentleman. He insists that he was given to understand that Enahoro was free from arrest.
If the Home Secretary or his officials were planning to apply the Fugitive Offenders Act, or were armed with it, then surely it was incumbent upon them to advise his solicitors or his personal friend that it would be unwise of him to come to this country. Surely, after three telephone calls in which the assurance had been given that he would be free from arrest they should have given him a warning that he would, after all, be subject to it. He came from Dublin on a Friday and was arrested the following Tuesday under the Fugitive Offenders Act. He was given no warning that the arrest was on its way.
The whole attitude of the Home Secretary has been deplorable. In view of all the doubts which exist in this case, I believe that the House should now do what the Daily Telegraph advises us to do—give Chief Enahoro the benefit of the doubt and allow him to be free in this country, or go to another country of his choice where he will be free.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The House is rightly concerned with any question which affects the freedom and safety of the individual, but I hope that it is also concerned with the rule of law, because without the rule of law there can be no justice and no freedom. Although I drew attention to the matter when the House last discussed the case, I feel obliged to remind hon. Members that it is the Home Secretary's duty to apply the present law and not his duty to apply some other law which many hon. Members feel would be more rightly applicable to this case.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would not this have also been the case in connection with the Cypriots, who were not returned?

Mr. Renton: I am discussing the case of Chief Enahoro. I am not discussing the case of the Cypriots. I understand that the circumstances of the two cases are very different.
It is the Home Secretary's duty to administer the Fugitive Offenders Act. There is a misleading impression that that Act applies, or should apply, only to Colonies and Protectorates still governed direct by the Colonial Secretary, and a further impression that it should not apply to self-governing countries of the Commonwealth, such as Nigeria. I understand that that is the sort of legal foundation of the case which has been put forward on behalf of Chief Enahoro.
I find that misleading for several reasons. The first is that the Fugitive Offenders Act, although passed as long ago as 1881, applied then to all Her Majesty's Dominions, as they were described in that Act. Some of them were then and still are Colonies. Others were and still are self-governing, such as Canada and the Channel Islands. That Act, not having been amended or modified, must be held to apply as well to those territories which were Colonies, but which have since become self-governing. It is surely significant, as I pointed out in our last debate on the subject, that neither the Statute of Westminster nor the Nigeria Act, 1960, contained any reference to the Fugitive Offenders Act and did not modify it in any way.
The other day, I was turning up a debate in 1947 in which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expressed his faith in the future development of what he called this "great bulwark of democratic civilisation". He was referring to the institutions of the independent countries of the Commonwealth. There has been fast development since 1947 when the right hon. Gentleman expressed that sentiment, with which I should have thought we could all agree. Independence has been given to a great many countries and we accept each of them as free and, above all, equal members of the Commonwealth.
There is no question of applying the principle which the right hon. Gentleman rightly deplored on that occasion when he quoted the Biglow Papers. I will not quote the saying in the vernacular, but it is:
If we say on our platforms that all men are our brothers,
We don't mean that some folk ain't more so than others.


In other words, if we accept that newly independent members of the Commonwealth are brothers with us in the development of the Commonwealth and its great institutions, then it is not for us here to start trying to be selective and to start placing ourselves in the position, the necessarily somewhat arrogant and censorious position, of judging whether the courts or the police of this or that country are fitted to do what we presume to do in our own country.
I am a member of Lincoln's Inn, and I suppose that Lincoln's Inn has called to the Bar more African barristers and judges than any of the other Inns of Court. Indeed, if one goes there any day one sees perhaps a hundred or more coloured Africans having dinner in the hall of Lincoln's Inn during the dining term. All these young men have come here to be trained in our laws and in our system of justice because they and their Governments have faith in us and in our laws and system of justice, and I ask the House to consider whether we should not have faith in them, too. It would be a great disillusionment to these young men returning to their own countries to feel that the very people who had inspired them with this sense of law and justice had no faith in their capacity to carry out the lessons they had learnt.
There has been a good deal of talk about the so-called right of asylum, and the suggestion is that because we grant asylum from time to time to foreigners who come here and who would be in danger of life, limb, or liberty if they returned to their own countries, that that should necessarily apply to citizens of Commonwealth countries. On the face of it this seems to be a good humanitarian argument, but when we come to apply the principle, if it be a principle, what do we find?
We find that although we would be treating Commonwealth citizens in the same way as we treat foreigners, we should, under our present law, also have to treat the countries of the Commonwealth to which those citizens belong as virtually foreign countries. Although we are all clear enough about the great difference between the Extradition Acts and the Fugitive Offenders Act, to say that the so-called right of asylum, which is not a right but an act of grace, should apply

to cases coming under the Fugitive Offenders Act as well, is to say, in effect, that the Commonwealth countries concerned should be treated as foreign countries. In view of the whole process of giving independence to countries of the Commonwealth, I think that this would be a distasteful thing to do.
I also wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith), whose sincerity we all admire, have really considered the implications of what they are suggesting today. I think that we have to bear in mind two things that they are suggesting. First, they are suggesting that anyone who falls out with his own Commonwealth Government for political reasons and places himself in the position of having to face a trial in that country, before the courts of that country, has only to come here, or for that matter, go to any other Commonwealth country, to avoid being tried by the courts of his own country.
We must carry this matter to its logical conclusion, and I do not think that that would make for a good Commonwealth. I do not think that it would add to the faith of the Commonwealth countries in their institutions. I do not thin that it would advance the cause of justice in the Commonwealth countries if that came to be a generally accepted practice. If Chief Enahoro is not sent back to Nigeria this case will be treated as a precedent, and that would become the established practice and the accepted principle. It would be a wrong principle and a bad practice.

Mr. D. Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Chief Enahoro were a foreigner and not a member of the Commonwealth he would have been granted political asylum here?

Mr. Renton: That is a hypothetical question, which, in the case of a foreigner, the Home Secretary might decide one way or another.
But, in spite of the very general terms in which this so-called right of asylum has been stated—and, as I say, it is not a right at all—I feel bound to remind the House that this is a matter in which Home Secretaries have always claimed to have a discretion. There are many factors which enter in. It is by no means an easy matter to bring any case within the long-


established practice relating to asylum. That is why, in all sincerity, I hesitate to answer my hon. Friend's question as it applies to this case.

Mr. Paget: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we must be careful lest we create a precedent tonight. Has he realised that if we send this man back we shall be creating a precedent and that we should have to return, for instance, anybody who declined to bow down and worship the god Nkrumah?

Mr. Renton: I have not access to all the previous cases under the Fugitives Offenders Act, and I am not in a position to answer the hon. and learned Member on that point. All I say is that if the point of view put forward by him and other hon. Members were accepted that would be a precedent.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am a layman in these matters, and I have listened to the debate with interest. As a layman, I want an answer to one question. The House was categorically told by the Prime Minister that
it is not the wish of the Government, or the House, that there should be any circumstances in which this man should be subject to danger of his life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.]
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman obtain an answer from the Attorney-General telling us what was the result of the telephone call about which we have heard? Was it said that the man's life was at stake, or was it not? We had a promise that he should not go back, and all this legal jargon means nothing compared with that promise.

Mr. Renton: I do not think that I should answer all the questions that are asked of my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench, but I happened to make a note about the telephone call. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend was told by the Attorney-General of Nigeria—who, incidentally, was a barrister who was trained in this country—that it was untrue that it was his intention to add any new charges. As I understand, the charges already preferred do not carry the death penalty.
The matter is plain. What has puzzled me most of all—I nearly raised a point of order about it, but I am not very good at that—was that in view of what my

hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) did not at once say that his case had fallen to the ground, and that there was no real point in pursuing this matter. But he is a very shrewd parliamentarian, and always bases his political case on as many pillars as he can.
I want to refer to one or two other points that were raised by the hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members. The first thing that I should do—because it follows from the interruption that we have just had—is to point out to the hon. and learned Member that the Prime Minister's honour is completely vindicated by the information which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the House today.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to interrupt him?

Mr. Renton: I have given way a great deal. I have tried to make some progress with my speech. But I seem to be doing nothing but answer questions which ought to be answered from the Government Front Bench and will be, as always, satisfactorily.
There is one answer, however, which might come more gracefully from a back bench Member than from the Government Front Bench and it is the answer to the attack which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) made, I thought rather venomously, on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—venomously, and unnecessarily venomously. He said that the sole decision rests with the Home Secretary, and so it does. But in a matter on which a layman might possibly require the advice of lawyers, surely the Home Secretary is entitled, and indeed obliged, to seek the advice of the Law Officers and to heed it. So that part of the rather bitter case advanced by the hon. Gentleman is answered.
The other part of the hon. Gentleman's case related to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Surely the Prime Minister of the day is entitled to find out from the Home Secretary of the day what is his decision in a particular case and to tell the House what it is, and that, virtually, is what the Prime Minister did—

Mr. M. Foot: Is it "not guilty"?

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Renton: Now I am being asked to answer two hon. Members who are both attempting to speak at the same time.
I will conclude, because there is not much "punch" left in the case which was advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton—

Mr. Harold Davies: That is ridiculous.

Mr. Renton: —and I think that in all the circumstances we might well—now that honour has been satisfied—get on with the debate on the Finance Bill.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede:: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) did me the honour of quoting something which I said in 1947. I have not altered my opinions on the matter raised in any way since that time. I do not intend to get involved in a legalistic argument. This is the position. This Chief is in the jurisdiction of this House. The Minister responsible for his health and safety is responsible to this House. If the man goes to Nigeria, this House has no further responsibility for him and that is an important phase of the question we are discussing tonight. He is in the jurisdiction of this House because, so far, the Home Secretary has not sent him back to Nigeria.
The Home Secretary has to consider justice in this matter. No one else comes into it at all. The learned Attorney-General may advise him, but the Home Secretary is responsible for the action he takes on that advice. The Prime Minister does not come into it from the point of view of the responsibility which I am discussing. It is a matter which rests with the Home Secretary alone. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had the same experience as I had when I was appointed Home Secretary. The then Prime Minister said to me, "You understand that there are many things which are your personal responsibility, which you can devolve on to no one else, and you have to satisfy your own conscience that you are carrying out your duties in that responsibility satisfactorily."
I listened to the very forthright and courageous speech of the hon. Member

for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith), whose conduct throughout this case has been beyond all praise. I attended certain private gatherings to which he invited me with members of all parties to discuss this matter. He has been quite frank with us. He said, "This man is living in my constituency. The case has been introduced to me in my capacity as Member of Parliament for Brentford and Chiswick and I am going to discuss this matter with the Home Secretary. I should like, before I do that, to have a consultation with those of you who are here." I think that there were about a dozen on one occasion who went with him to the Home Secretary to discuss this matter.
When I listened to the case he submitted this evening, I had grave doubts as to what will happen to this man if he passes outside the jurisdiction of this House. In some ways it is a good thing that he has been in custody in this country because, if he had been wandering about free, he might very well have been kidnapped or something might have happened to him which cannot happen to him all the while he is in Brixton Gaol. I do not believe that justice can be assured to this man if he goes back to Nigeria, from what I have heard from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick and from the papers which, in common with other hon. Members. I have had the opportunity of considering in detail.
I hope that we are not going to be as foolish as the Chief was when he accepted a telephone conversation that someone else had with somebody who, so far as I can make out, was not very well instructed in the matter. We are now asked to accept a telephone conversation of this afternoon between the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Nigeria. We have seen what happened through placing reliance on telephone conversations in the early stages of this matter. I hope we shall not think that, because we started off badly with a telephone conversation, the only correct way to wind it up is to rely on another telephone conversation.
We have the disadvantage that we have not had the exact words of the telephone conversation passed to us, although I do not doubt for a moment


that we have had the hon. and learned Gentleman's recollection of what he said and of what the person at the other end of the telephone line said to him. It made him feel in some way or other that the pledge which the Prime Minister had given to this House would be fulfilled if as a result of that conversation we were prepared to take action.
I still believe that the Home Secretary has to satisfy the House that he was right in considering the procedure just. In nothing that he has said so far has he convinced me of that. I am sure that there are many Members of the House who share my difficulty in this matter. I agree that the Home Secretary is entitled to have the help of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. In fact hon. Members will recollect that one evening all three of them were assuring us that they were mutually helping one another, but no one of them was quite sure that the other two understood what they were talking about.
Let us be certain of this. The issue before us tonight is of the utmost importance to one wretched subject of the Crown, this Chief who has been imprisoned for some months now in grave doubt as to what his future is, and who says that he is in fear of his life if he goes back to Nigeria. I hope that the House will feel that its first responsibility is to this man, to see that justice is done to him in this country while he is within our jurisdiction. Because I very much doubt if he will get justice elsewhere, I hope that he will remain within our jurisdiction.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The case of Chief Enahoro raises important constitutional issues and deep human issues. I think that very often constitutional considerations and human considerations conflict with one another. A good many hon. Members feel that conflict strongly in this case. I do not want to argue that point this evening. I would merely say that the human issue arises primarily on the consideration that this man seems to be getting harsher treatment as a British subject than he might be getting if he were an alien.
I would only remind the House that we control the entry of aliens into this

country with the utmost rigour and with the universal consent of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is because of that control that we are able, and have been able for a long time past, to grant political asylum in a great many cases. If we are to assimilate the position of British subjects and aliens in respect of such cases as Chief Enahoro, we shall be taking a long step in the direction of making it essential that we put still further and greater restrictions on the entry of British subjects coming from outside this country.

Mr. Thorpe: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that Section 3 of the Extradition Act specifically makes it mandatory upon the Home Secretary not to extradite or deport somebody charged with a political offence gives some indication of the importance attached to political asylum and, therefore, the readiness with which we would allow an alien who was seeking political asylum to come into this country?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is as may be. All I am saying is that there are duties and there are rights. If we alter one, we shall go a long way towards altering the other, because these are carefully matched and balanced. For my part, I do not wish to see British subjects assimilated to aliens, for this or for any other purpose.

Mr. G. Brown: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he mean that they should be kept in a worse state than aliens?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: They are not in a worse state. What I mean is that the status of a British subject, which is well recognised on both sides of the House and indeed universally, is one which, on the whole, I want to see maintained.
This is concerned with a much narrower question. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the subject of the proposed deportation of Chief Enahoro in breach of the undertaking given to this House by the Prime Minister on 26th March last.That is the whole subject of this debate. The undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite categorical.


In fact, he gave it three times, and I should like to read each of those undertakings, because they are of the utmost importance in this connection.
On 26th March, at col. 1283, the Prime Minister said this:
I give this undertaking: that until I am satisfied that either this charge is withdrawn, or our legal advisers and others tell me that the view just expressed is absolutely right beyond peradventure, we shall not return this man …
At col. 1284 he said:
I make this perfectly clear. Until either the charge is withdrawn, or if the lawyers decide and advise— [HON. MEMBERSH 'Which lawyers?'] I am quite prepared that my right hon. Friend and, let us say, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) should agree about this. My right hon. Friend would be quite prepared to consult him. I tell the House that there will be no question of this man being returned if there is any doubt or any question at all of the death penalty being enforceable by the courts.
Again, at col. 1286, the Prime Minister said:
The view of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it is a bad point; but I will give this assurance: we will not return Chief Enahoro until either this is shown by the lawyers, after consideration, to be a bad point, or, if it is held to be a good point, the Nigerian Government have given a definite undertaking that no charge wilt be brought against the Chief carrying the death penalty either now or at any other time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, cc. 1283, 4, 6.]
On each occasion my right hon. Friend's assurance is given quite specifically and categorically in the alternative. He uses the words "either, or" in every case.

Mr. Paget: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the bottom of col. 1286 he will see:
… that it is not the wish of the Government, or of the House, that there should be any circumstances in which this man should be subject to danger of his life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.]

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that that is correct. I think that that is the necessary corollary to the specific undertaken given by my right hon. Friend. Certainly, the position was perfectly well understood by the Leader of the Opposition, because in his intervention he said:
What he"—
the Prime Minister—
has said in the middle of a debate on a Motion and Amendment before the House is

that the Government will take it back and, when the Attorney-General has had time to consider this admittedly difficult point, if he, the Prime Minister, is then satisfied that the point is not valid, presumably the Chief will be deported; but if the Prime Minister is not so satisfied, then the Chief will be kept here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1283.]
That could hardly be more specific. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition knew perfectly well what the pledge was, and that was never contradicted. The question was: what was the meaning of the second charge which was brought against the Chief? On that point, curiously, today next to nothing has been said.
I think that one of the most remarkable things about this debate is that, in spite of the express reference to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), he has not been present in the Chamber for one moment during the debate.

Mr. G. Brown: How could my right hon. and learned Friend have known early today that the debate was coming on? It came on after half-past three. If the hon. Baronet wants to make a point of it, let me make it quite clear to him that my right hon. and learned Friend does not agree with the Attorney-General in his view of the law.

Hon. Members: Where is the Prime Minister?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: We have had a good deal of hearsay evidence—

Mr. Paget: Like the conversation with Nigeria.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton presumably knew a little time ago that he was going to raise this matter, and he could have given his right hon. and learned Friend notice.
One thing which is quite certain is that the subject matter on which this Adjournment Motion was raised has not been referred to at all in the debate today. The case of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton was entirely based on the argument that new charges are likely to be brought against the Chief when he gets to Nigeria, and that there is some evidence coming which will tend to show that that is the case.
The whole case put by the Opposition, and, I think, by the right hon. Member for Belper, is that the Opposition are now demanding that there shall be some undertaking that no new charges will be brought. I should be surprised if that is not the tenor of his argument when he gets up to speak.
The Attorney-General has told the House that he has today spoken to the Attorney-General of Nigeria, and he has told us quite categorically that the Attorney-General of Nigeria has said that it is not his intention that any new charges shall be brought against the Chief when he returns to Nigeria. I think that the whole House has accepted that statement, at any rate as far as it goes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hearsay."] We cannot have anything but hearsay. We cannot have the Attorney-General of Nigeria in this House. All that we can do is to take my right hon. Friend's word for it.
The Opposition are asking that there should be some express undertaking given by the Government of Nigeria that that is not their intention. I beg the Opposition not to press that demand. The Attorney-General of Nigeria is the prosecuting authority. It is entirely proper that he should be asked and that he should reply as to his intentions with regard to prosecution.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been more proper for the Attorney-General to have had that information at his disposal, bearing in mind the Prime Minister's assurance, because today, before this debate was started, the Attorney-General said, "I have no information of any kind that an undertaking had been given that they could be sure that there was no danger of this man losing his life." This is the discreditable episode.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Opposition keep changing their ground. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question. The point that was raised last time was the meaning and the effect of the second of the two charges and the whole debate was about that. The whole argument was: what is the meaning of that and what is the intention of the Government on that? Now the hon. and learned Member for Northampton brings forward a totally different

case and says, "Why have not we information about that?" We could go on playing that game for ever. The answer is that it is silly to do so.
The House knows perfectly well that the Opposition are playing cat and mouse and that the Government are being extremely patient. The Opposition have now been taken to the point when they are asking another Government to give an express undertaking that they will not prosecute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That is exactly the Question I expected—because it is entirely improper to suggest that any Government should take a hand in prosecution. That is not the case in this country and I hope that it will not be the case in any British country.

Mr. M. Foot: In that case, why did the Prime Minister put the question to the High Commissioner?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Because it is entirely proper to ask the question of a High Commissioner in the circumstances. At all events, I notice that the hon. Gentleman, by his question, admits the impeachment I bring against him, that the question would be improper. I hope most sincerely that the right hon. Member for Belper will not press the Government to seek any further undertakings beyond that which has already properly been given to my hon. and learned Friend.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: In that speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) we heard the essential conservative—I use the word with a small "c"—attitude to justice. [An HON. MEMBER "No."] If other Conservatives want to fight about it, all right, but it seemed to me that there was the whole philosophy and argument summed up. If we fight for a man's life with all the weapons we can find, this, in the view of the hon. Member for Hendon, South, is somehow wrong. If the Government fight with all the weapons they can find to have a man put in jeopardy, the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is somehow right. In that speech the difference between the two sides of the House today was laid clear.
Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want citizens of the Commonwealth to be assimilated


to the position of foreigners. He did not seem to get hold of the point that what the Government are doing here is to put a citizen of the Commonwealth in a worse position than an Arab, a Spaniard, a Portuguese or any other alien. Unless hon. and right hon. Members opposite get hold of that, all these debates will have been abortive. They are putting this man in a position in which no foreigner would be.
I restate now something which I have said each time I have spoken, something which, I hoped, did not need to be said again, but which, perhaps, ought to be said every time. We are not criticising Nigerian justice, Nigerian legal procedure or Nigerian democracy. We accept—not merely take for granted—that Nigeria is a new, emergent nation living its life by devotion to the ideals which matter to us. It is no part of our case to cast doubt upon the ideals of Nigeria. But Nigeria should understand that we have, over the centuries, established traditions here, too. We are entitled to ask Nigeria to understand these traditions.
One of our traditions is that we do not send people from these shores when they are charged with political offences. I have little doubt that Chief Enahoro's case will be the last of its kind. I have little doubt that there will never be another Commonwealth citizen who will find himself worse treated than an alien. I am sure that we shall amend the Fugitive Offenders Act and bring it into line with the Extradition Act.
The question, therefore, is: should we make this man, whose case will be the last of its kind, suffer a penalty because the law was not amended a bit sooner? I am sure that, if the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had, instead of sitting on that bench brooding over us and nudging his colleagues the whole time, occupied his undoubted talents and qualities in explaining this to the Nigerians, we should have had no great problem in this case. I am sure that the Nigerians would have understood.
This is both a proud and a sad night. It is a proud night because for the third or fourth time we have held up the business in the greatest forum of democratic debate in the entire world for the case of one man. I came to the House today with no idea that we should be doing

anything tonight but dealing with the Finance Bill. Many things make me proud of standing here, but none more than that tonight unexpectedly I should be speaking to the House about the case of a man I hardly know, whom I have met only once, who, perhaps, does not matter in the great scheme of things but around whom great issues seem to evolve and revolve. I said to one of my colleagues earlier, "There is possibly no other democratic assembly in the world where this could happen", and we feel passionately keen about it.
It is a sad night because this is the end of the road. I have a feeling—perhaps it is unworthy, but I have it—that hon. Members opposite have decided, for the most part, to support their Ministerial colleagues in the Division Lobby and to vote in a way which will send this man back to Nigeria. That is sad because I think that all the issues involved call us not to do it.
I turn to the spinning on a sixpence—it was not even legalistic—which the Attorney-General did earlier today in trying to explain away the Prime Minister's pledges. He held up his sleeve to the very last minute and then produced this rather clever act of the conjurer, this telephone conversation with the Attorney-General in Nigeria, when for weeks and months we had been asking for just such an assurance about which he spoke. He suddenly said, "I have had a telephone conversation". When we asked whether that conversation carried the authentic stamp of Government agreement, he said, "Oh, no". This was, apparently, just two chaps having a chat with each other. It seemed to me that the whole speech was so much below the level of what we are discussing. We are discussing great issues of liberty and individual rights which go back to Runnymede and beyond. There have always been, I regret to say, legalistic gentlemen around to be bought to explain why the rights that we claim ought not to be granted.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South spoke about the changed ground of the Opposition. I wish that he would read the debates all the way through—he, like myself, has sat through most of them—and would consider the changed ground of the Government. They have changed their ground on every single occasion that we have discussed this


matter. We are shortly to hear the Home Secretary. I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) that if ever a Minister who claimed that he had absolute responsibility in a matter had been so humiliated beyond what any normal man would stand, it is the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have written the law for him and have explained his judgments for him. If he tells us again tonight that he decided this matter all by himself, I am bound to tell him that there is hardly a man in this House who will believe him.
This has been a political decision. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has sat here all the way through, nudging, whispering and urging. There has been no doubt who has been at the bottom of this decision. The Home Secretary has hardly ever been able to explain for himself the reasons that he has stuck to this decision. He has been the most ineffectual Minister in the whole thing, totally ineffectual. We have had the Attorney-General with his weak, legalistic spinning, the Prime Minister jumping in when the credit of the Government seemed to be at stake and the nudgings of the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary. The only man who never seemed to be in charge here was the one man who had the decision to make.
Today, we have been told, not by the Home Secretary, but by the Attorney-General, about the telephone conversation. Let me ask the Home Secretary what relevance that conversation, of which he had never heard, has to his decision. It is the Home Secretary's decision. He did not speak to the Home Secretary of Nigeria. The Attorney-General spoke to the Nigerian Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. What relevance did that telephone conversation have to the Home Secretary? He had already made up his mind.
I do not know at what stage the Attorney-General told the Home Secretary about the telephone conversation. The Attorney-General was good enough to tell us that he rang up his opposite number in Nigeria only after

my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had got Mr. Speaker's permission to move the Adjournment of the House at seven o'clock. That means that the Attorney-General must have telephoned between 3.30 and 7 p.m. Did the Home Secretary know that he was going to ring up? Did the Home Secretary say, "My decision turns on this"? I am bound to ask the Home Secretary to tell us what relevance that telephone conversation has to a decision for which he alone is responsible. The Home Secretary told us before that he would not be moved by any of these things; he made up his own mind. What relevance did that telephone conversation have?
How does the Home Secretary judge that telephone conversation? Has he a record? Does he know the questions which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General put to the Attorney-General of Nigeria? Does he know what answers were given? Were I Home Secretary, this being my decision, I should want to know exactly what the conversation was and what undertakings were given. Does the Home Secretary know? Is there any record of that conversation or was it just on the "old pals act" between two lawyers.
If the Home Secretary is relying on something that happened inside the last three hours, when he had already ordered the aircraft, when he had already prevented the man's solicitor from going into Brixton to see him, did he know about the conversation when he did that at about 5 o'clock? The Home Secretary should tell us rather more about it.
All I can say is that I am very unimpressed. Since this is the Home Secretary's decision and not the Attorney-General's, will he hold this man here until he can place in the Library a straightforward recording of the conversation, so that we can see what it was the Attorney-General asked and what it was the Nigerian Attorney-General undertook?
Let us have a look. It may well be that the undertakings which the Attorney-General got this afternoon at short notice—very short notice—were the ones we have been asking for in the last weeks. All right. Then let us have a look and see, and if they are I shall not be awkward.


I have been asking for these for weeks. If they were the undertakings we have been asking for I will be the first to say how pleased I am. But will the Home Secretary not sign that order till we see this conversation and see just how genuine and how full in fact it was? I think that this is the test, and I and my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side will be very pleased to stand by and have a look at it. I do not think I can be more forthcoming to the Home Secrettary.
Let us have a look. He must want to have a look. He cannot possibly at this stage have any more than the same kind of rather loose statement from the Attorney-General that we had. I do not think that any Home Secretary could make this kind of decision on this kind of statement. He must want to have a look.
Let us recall what we are doing tonight. If we send this man back without really knowing whether he stands trial for his life or not, we are making a new decision which will long outlive us. The very same Attorney who is alleged this afternoon at very short notice to have given the undertakings about new charges which the Nigerian Prime Minister indignantly said he could not be asked to give a few weeks ago, the very same Attorney, is the man who signed the warrant, the affidavit. It is the very same man. It is the man who signed the affidavit which drew the magistrate's attention to the fact that the death penalty already applies—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes, indeed. His name is T. O. Elias. Is that not right?

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I have seen that document and the signature at the bottom of the list of signatures. It says that what he is certifying in that document is that the signatures of the persons making the affidavit were perfectly in order.

Mr. Brown: It is a certificate which says:
At the Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos. For authentication and legalisation of the following signatures".
It says:
Dated at Lagos this eighth day of December".
It is signed: "T. O. Elias." Hon. Members opposite can have it their way if they want it that way. They mean Mr. Elias signs the documents, maybe has telephone conversations that may mean nothing

—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let us be clear about it.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: It is certifying the signatures.

Mr. Brown: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing no service to Nigeria.

Dame Irene Ward: Neither is the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Sir H. Legge-Bourke rose—

Mr. Brown: No. The hon. Gentleman is doing no service to Nigeria at all. The name of Mr. Elias appears at the bottom of this document and he took responsibility for it.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I have more faith in Mr. Elias than apparently hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Gentlemen is making it extremely difficult for me to support the case which I think ought to be supported tonight, but really do ask him to believe me when I say that he is on a totally false point over this, and he is making it no easier for those of us who want to back my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith).

Mr. Brown: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. He must face his own conscience and make his own decision.
What I am saying is that if I am asked this afternoon to accept the declaration of Mr. Elias on the telephone that he told the Attorney-General that no further charges will be preferred which carry the death penalty I am bound to observe the bottom of the affidavit which drew the attention of the magistrates to the fact that the death penalty is carried by that charge. If hon. Gentlemen tell me that the only point of the signature was to authenticate the signatures of other people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—I doubt whether Mr. Elias would have gone that far unless he accepted what was in the affidavit.

The Attorney-General: This ought to be made clear so that the House is not under any misapprehension about the telephone conversation. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said that the Attorney-General of Nigeria gave undertakings that additional charges would not be made. I had, I hoped, already made it perfectly clear that this matter arose out of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for


Northampton (Mr. Paget) that there were intentions to add additional charges and that there would be evidence to this effect; and all that I said to the Attorney-General of Nigeria was that this had been said, and he told me that he had no intention at all of adding any such charges or of departing in any way in the proceedings from the charges in respect of which Chief Enahoro had been committed by Bow Street.

Mr. Brown: I do not quite see the point of that. [Interruption.] I ask the House to listen to this. It may be that my argument is wrong, but let hon. Members listen to it. Perhaps the Leader of the House will stop that "H'm, h'ming". It would not be a bad thing if he also started listening, and maybe he would not be in quite the trouble that he is on his own side if he listened a bit more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is too easy to come down here late at night and treat the subject as though it does not matter. This is a serious matter.
I was not quite clear whether the Attorney-General was saying that his opposite number in Nigeria had or had not given him undertakings. I understand that his opposite number had given him an undertaking that no new charges would be preferred. Is that so?

The Attorney-General: I hope that I can make it plain. I think that it is understood. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton said that new evidence was coming and that new charges were going to be added. The only person who can add them is the prosecuting authority in Nigeria, the Attorney-General. So I asked the Attorney-General of Nigeria what substance there was in this statement, and he said that there was no intention, as I have told the House, by him as the prosecuting authority to add any new charges or to depart at all from the charges on which Chief Enahoro was to be returned by Bow Street.

Mr. Brown: Let us get this clear again. [Laughter.] This is very important. Has the Attorney-General of Nigeria told the Attorney-General of Great Britain that no further charges will be preferred against Chief Enahoro if and when he goes back?

The Attorney-General: I will repeat what I have already said. The Attorney-General of Nigeria has said that there is nothing whatever in the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that there is an intention to add any additional charges, whether capital or not.

Mr. Brown: Are we not really spinning now? I asked: would any further charges be preferred? The Attorney-General keeps getting up and saying, with a lot of words, "There is no intention." Is that the same thing?

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that?

Mr. Brown: I asked the Attorney-General: is that the same thing? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Is that the same thing? Does "no intention" mean that there will be no further charges?

The Attorney-General: It depends upon what reliance one places on the word of the Attorney-General in Nigeria.

Mr. Brown: It is the word of our Attorney-General with which I am concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Attorney-General of Great Britain has to uphold a very honourable office. Does he believe that no further charges will be preferred?

The Attorney-General: I will give my personal opinion. I certainly believe the word of my colleague, the Attorney-General of Nigeria, who told me that he did not intend to add any further charges. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that in these circumstances he would not do so.

Mr. Brown: I shall be very surprised if that satisfies hon. Members opposite. We have now had four or five attempts and still the hon. and learned Gentleman will not say that no further charges will be preferred. Let hon. Members opposite understand that if they vote tonight for the Government they are voting for something to which the Attorney-General is not willing to commit himself.
The point is that the Attorney-General gave an assurance, and the Prime Minister's honour is wrapped up in this. The Prime Minister said, "We will not send this man back if there is any doubt". Does the House believe that the Attorney-General would have gone on word spinning like that unless there were doubt?


It would be very simple for him to say, "I have been assured this afternoon that no further charges will be preferred". But that is the one thing he cannot say, and it leaves the Prime Minister's assurance totally in doubt. It leaves it totally unredeemed.
The fact is that, even having gone to the length of telephoning to Nigeria this afternoon, the Attorney-General still failed to extract the only undertaking that would have let the Prime Minister off the hook. All this word spinning leaves the thing in doubt. The Prime Minister said that the Government would not send Chief Enahoro hack if there were any doubt.
I must sit down to allow the Home Secretary time to reply. I say this in conclusion. This man's life is in danger. There is a great deal of doubt about existing charges. There is a great deal of doubt about whether they carry the death penalty. There is a lot of doubt about whether, if Chief Enahoro goes back, further charges will be preferred in order to make the penalty clear. Everyone has tried. The Prime Minister tried to get an undertaking from the Prime Minister of Nigeria. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations tried. This afternoon, dramatically, the Attorney-General tried. Every one of them has failed.

The Attorney-General: I did not attempt to get an undertaking from the Attorney-General of Nigeria. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that I have made my position clear. The only issue I discussed with him was the allegation made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.

Mr. Brown: So now we have it. The reason that the Attorney-General kept spinning words was that he not only did not get an undertaking but did not even try to get it. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. The assurance that he gave was that this man would not go back unless we got such an undertaking. Not only have we not got it but the Government have not even today tried to get it. The Government are covered with shame. So will anybody else be who votes with them tonight.

9.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have been left a quarter of an hour and after that speech I should remind the House that what we are debating is my decision that it is just to send Chief Enahoro back to Nigeria. Other hon. Members may have changed their ground. I have never done. I gave that decision to the House two months ago. I have stood by it.
I was asked by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) whether this telephone call was relevant to my decision. How could it have been relevant to a decision which I took two months ago? It was relevant simply and solely to an allegation which turned out to be a false allegation made this afternoon by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and which was the occasion for this debate.
The House has to weigh tonight, as it has so often had to do through its history, the balance of freedom and justice. Hon. Members have said that this is a question of the freedom of an individual. It also must be a question of justice, because there is no freedom for the individual unless law and order prevail. The Fugitive Offenders Act puts on me the grave responsibility, which only I can carry, of determining whether it is just to send a man back to Nigeria, fortunately in this case in no danger of his life.
It has not been made easier for me to carry this responsibility by allegations which have been made in the debate falsifying what I have said. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton, who made a bitter personal attack on me, alleged that I had admitted that on 14th March I had not considered any of the other aspects of the case except the course of the legal proceedings. That was a serious charge. What I said to the House on 14th March was:
I have given most careful consideration to all aspects of this difficult case and to all the representations which have been made to me by Chief Enahoro and on his behalf".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1963; Vol. 673. c. 1543.]
Hon. Members have said that I should have changed my decision because it seemed possible that there was a likeli-


hood of a capital charge. In fact, in the petition which Chief Enahoro submitted to me in February there was no suggestion whatever that he thought that he was liable to the death penalty if he returned to Nigeria. I respect what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) says—that at this moment Chief Enahoro feels that he may be in danger of his life. But if he had felt that in February, he would undoubtedly have included it in the petition which he submitted to me seeking to convince me that it would not be just to return him to Nigeria.
It is interesting to look back over the course of events with regard to the death penalty. As long ago as 21st March, in the first long debate which we had on this subject, I said:
Let me add … that there is no question of Chief Enahoro being sent back to stand trial for his life, The offences for which he is charged under Nigerian law do not carry the death penalty."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 21st March. 1963; Vol. 674, c. 601.]
That was said in the House at five o'clock in the afternoon and it was not challenged by anybody, not challenged even by learned counsel for Chief Enahoro, who was present in the House when I said those words. This suggestion that has later come, that he is in danger of his life, was not supported by any of the evidence which was put before the Divisional Court or before the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords and, I find most convincing of all, never put in his petition to me.
All that has happened today is that because a fresh debate was called for, simply and solely, so far as I can judge, on allegations made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that there was some possibility of additional charges which carried the death penalty being about to be made, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General telephoned the Attorney-General of Nigeria and received the reply of which the House is aware.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that because there happens to be in the House counsel who has appeared for Chief Enahoro when the matter is debated, and he fails to intervene in the debate, that is an acknowledgement on his part of the rightness of what the

Home Secretary is saying? The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that Members of Parliament who appear as counsel have no right, under the standards of their profession, and under the rules of this House, to intervene in matters where they have appeared professionally in a court of law.

Mr. Brooke: I was simply and solely making the point that when as long ago as 21st March I said in the House that there was no question of Chief Enahoro being liable to the death penalty, nobody interfered, nobody raised the point, and that it was not until a subsequent debate that it was first alleged that there might be any question of the death penalty, an allegation which has been totally disposed of by what the Attorney-General has since said.
I want to take up further points which have been made in the debate, and to take up if I can each of what were put to the House as being the most damaging ones. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) suggested that an assurance had been given by the Home Office that if Chief Enahoro came to this country he would be free from risk. No assurance of that kind was ever given. I set out the facts of this at length in the debate on 21st March, and they are there on the record for all time. The only assurance that was given was that Chief Enahoro could be admitted to this country if he came here, but he was told of the existence of the Fugitive Offenders Act, he was told that he might be at risk of arrest under it, and he was told where he could get further information about that fact.
If action is taken under the Fugitive Offenders Act it does not originate with the United Kingdom Government. It originates with the overseas Government. No one in this country can say what an overseas Government will do, but it is the fact that Chief Enahoro's friend was informed about the Fugitive Offenders Act, and he was informed where he could get the information.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Chief Enahoro's friend does not agree with the interpretation of the conversation which the Home Secretary reported to the House, and that the Chief's friend still confirms


that his understanding was that he had an assurance that Chief Enahoro would be free from arrest.

Mr. Brooke: I am saying that no assurance was given. I did what I thought was the right thing. I invited him and the Home Office official concerned to my room and we went over all the facts, and what I said in the House on 21st March was as accurate an account as I could possibly give of what took place at that time.

Mr. G. Brown: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman called a genuine misunderstanding when he spoke to us before, would not the easiest way out of this be to let the man go back to where he was before the misunderstanding, namely, to Dublin?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that that outweighs the conviction to which I have come, and which I have stood by, that it would be just in all the circumstances to return him to Nigeria.
Allegations were made that this would not have happened to the man if he had been an alien instead of a Commonwealth citizen. This is not true. The Fugitive Offenders Act applies absolutely equally to Commonwealth citizens and to foreigners. If he had been a foreigner who had been mixed up in these affairs in Nigeria he would have been just as much liable to extradition under the Fugitive Offenders Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick quoted at some length from the proceedings in Nigeria, which suggested that certain evidence in the trial of Chief Awolowo had been obtained under duress. These are matters for the Nigerian courts. That evidence has been considered and weighed by the Nigerian courts, and any further evidence that was brought forward against Chief Enahoro would likewise be weighed and considered there. The House must make up its mind whether or not is has confidence in the courts of Nigeria.
The right hon. Member for Belper assured us that nothing had been said against their integrity. On the other hand, his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said—and I took down his words—that he did not believe that justice could be ensured for this man if he returned to Nigeria. I

cannot read that as anything but a criticism of the Nigerian courts or the Nigerian legal system.
Hon. Members have suggested that this is a political offence, which should not be made the subject of action under the Fugitive Offenders Act. I would remind the House of the allegations made against Chief Enahoro and others who were said to have taken part in this plot. Chief Enahoro is alleged to have taken part in a plot, with the aid of arms and explosives imported from outside the country, to capture key towns in Nigeria and to seize the Prime Minister and other Federal Ministers, and assume control—in other words, to overthrow by forcible means the lawfully constituted and democratically elected Government of the country.
That is the nature of the charge which is being preferred against Chief Enahoro and other members of his party. That is the plot in which Chief Enahoro is alleged to have been involved, and I have said from the beginning, having taken everything into account, that. I think that it is just that he should return to Nigeria and stand his trial there. He claims that he has a complete answer to all these charges. The place where that complete answer should be given and established is in the courts of Nigeria.
The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the assurances that the Prime Minister gave. Those assurances have been fulfilled to the letter. What he said was that either it would be established that those charges on which Chief Enahoro was to be arraigned did not carry the death penalty, or, if they did carry the death penalty, he wished for an assurance that they would be withdrawn and that no other such charges would be brought. It has been completely established that these charges do not carry the death penalty. The allegations made today that there is some intention of preferring new charges which do carry the death penalty have been explicitly refuted by the Attorney-General of Nigeria.
In those circumstances, I suggest to the House that there is no reason for it to depart from the decision that it reached five weeks ago, that is, to uphold my decision that it is just to return Chief Enahoro.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 247.

Division No. 111.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Harper, Joseph
Pavitt, Laurence


Ainsley, William
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Healey, Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Probert, Arthur


Baird, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Rankin, John


Baxter, William (Stirlingshlre, W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Redhead, E. C.


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Reid, William


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hooson, H. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Biffen, John
Hoy, James H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W.(Leics, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Boyle, Charles (Salford, West)


Bradley, Tom
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Short, Edward


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechtord)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt.Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, Percy
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, Julian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kenyon, Clifford
Steele, Thomas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, John
King, Dr. Horace
Stonehouse, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Stones, William


Dalyeil, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Darling, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, D.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield'


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, N.
Thomas, lorwerlh (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McInnes, James
Thornton, Ernest


Deer, George
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Timmons, John


Dempsey, James
McLeavy, Frank
Tomney, Frank


Diamond, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wade, Donald


Dodds, Norman
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Donnelly, Desmond
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Edwards, RI. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marsh, Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Millan, Bruce
Wilkins, W. A.


Fell, Anthony
Milne, Edward
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, C. R.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fletcher, Eric
Morris, John
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Neal, Harold
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Forman, J. C.
Oliver, C. H.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
O'Malley, B. K.
Woof, Robert


Galpern, Sir Myer
Oram, A. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Ginsburg, David
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Gourley, Harry
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Grey, Charles
Pargiter, G. A.
ELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Parker, John
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parkin, B. T.
Mr. McCann.


Hannan, William
Paton, John





NOES


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Batstord, Brian
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward


Allason, James
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Goa &amp; Fhm)
Braine, Bernard


Arbuthnot, John
Berkeley, Humphry
Brewis, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Atkins, Humphrey
Bingham, R. M.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Brooman-White, R.


Balniel, Lord
Bishop, F. P.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Barber, Anthony
Black, Sir Cyril
Buck, Antony


Barlow, Sir John
Bourne-Aston, A.
Bullard, Denys


Barter, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric




Burden, F. A.
Hollingworth, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hopkins, Alan
Pitman, Sir James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pott, Percivall


Channon, H. P. G.
Howard, John (Southampton, Teat)
Prior, J. M. L.


Chataway, Christopher
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pym, Francis


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, James


Cleaver, Leonard
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Rees, Hugh


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corfield, F. V.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Ridsdale, Julian


Coulson, Michael
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crawley, Aidan
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roots, William


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kimball, Marcus
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cunningham, Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Ronald


Curran, Charles
Lagden, Godfrey
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Currie, C. B. H.
Leather, Sir Edwin
Seymour, Leslie


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leavey, J. A.
Sharpies, Richard


Dance, James
Leburn, Gilmour
Shaw, M.


d' Avigdor-Goldemid, Sir Henry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, William


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Skeet, T. H. H.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Smithers, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geolfrey (Sut'nC'dfiefd)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


du Cann, Edward
Longbottom, Charles
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Duncan, Sir James
Leveys, Walter H.
Spelr, Rupert


Eden, Sir John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stodart, J. A.


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Errington, Sir Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Summers, Sir Spencer


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Talbot, John E.


Freeth, Denzil
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)
Tapaell, Peter


Gammons, Lady
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Gardner, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


George, Sir John (pollok)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Temple, John M.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Goodhart, Philip
Maitland, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gough, Frederick
Marshall, Douglas
Tilley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Nell
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Green, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon



Mawby, Ray
Turner, Colin


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gurden, Harold
Miscamphell, Norman
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David


Harrison, Brian (Malden)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Neave, Airey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Whitelaw, William


Hay, John
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wise, A. R.


Hendry, Forbes
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Woollam, John


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Marcus


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Hobson, Sir John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hocking, Philip N.
Peel, John
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian
M. Finlay.

FINANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Clause 12.—(AMENDMENTS TO PART VIII OF ACT OF 1952 (PERSONAL ETC. RELIEFS).)

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 10, line 14, at the end to insert:
(4) In section 214 of the Act of 1952 (person taking charge of widower's or widow's children or acting as his or her housekeeper), as amended by section 18 of the Finance Act 1960, for the reference to £75 there shall be substituted a reference to £100.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we discuss the Amendments in page 10, line 18, at end insert:
and in the said section 216 for references to £75 (inserted by section 18 of the Finance Act 1960) there shall be substituted references to £100".

In line 18, at end insert:
(5) In section 217 of the Act of 1952 (claimant depending on services of a daughter) for the reference to £40 (inserted by section 14(4) of the Finance Act 1953) there shall be substituted a reference to £60.

In page 11, line 6, at end insert:
(8) In section 17 of the Finance Act 1960 (additional relief for widows and others in respect of children) for the reference to £40 there shall be substituted a reference to £60.

Mr. Houghton: Yes, it will he convenient to group these Amendments together, though with your permission, Sir Robert, we should probably wish to divide on several of the Amendments separately.
This group of Amendments deals with the personal reliefs which are not included in the Clause but which we think should have been brought into the Chancellor's improvements of personal allowances. The Amendment in page 10, line 14, concerns the housekeeper allowance. The first Amendment in page 10, line 18, is concerned with the dependent relative allowance. The second Amendment in page 10, line 18, concerns the allowance for an infirm taxpayer relying on the services of a daughter. The Amendment in page 11, line 6, concerns the relief given in the Finance Act, 1960, to widows and others in respect of children.
The allowances for a housekeeper and dependent relative, dealt with in the Amendment in page 10, line 14, and the first Amendment in page 10, line 18, were increased from £60 to £75 in 1960. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen fit to improve on the 1960 figure in the Clause. The same applies to dependent relatives. Although the Chancellor has successively improved the conditions under which the dependent relative allowance may be granted, he has not increased the amount. That again was increased last in 1960.
In the case of the second Amendment in page 10, line 18, this is a small relief granted to only a few taxpayers where an infirm taxpayer relies on the services of a daughter. This relief was increased from £25 to £40 in 1953–54 and has not been improved since.
The matter dealt with in the Amendment in page 11, line 6, is a new relief introduced into the Finance Act, 1960, to provide for the case of widowers and widows with young children who did not have a resident housekeeper and who did not therefore qualify for the conventional housekeeper relief. In that case, relief of tax on £40 was provided for in the Finance Act, 1960. That covers the four reliefs which are referred to in the four Amendments.
I am sure that the Minister will wish to explain to the Committee why the Chancellor has not felt able to improve these reliefs in the Bill. It is true that there has been no uniformity, either as to the amount or as to the dates on which the personal allowances have been changed. The main personal allowances were improved last in 1955, and I am sure that the whole Committee would agree that they were due for some improvement this year. I mention that because some of these reliefs—in fact, all of them except one—have been increased since 1955. I think the only one that has not been increased since 1955 is the case of the infirm taxpayer relying on the services of a daughter. But I am bound to refer to the fact that when the new relief of £40 was introduced into the Finance Act, 1960, it seemed to correspond to the allowance of £40 given for an infirm taxpayer relying on the services of a daughter.
One can, therefore, look at the new relief for widows and widowers with children but with no resident housekeeper as having been forecast in 1960 in line with the existing relief of £40 for an infirm taxpayer relying on the services of a daughter. We think that since the Chancellor has revised almost all the personal reliefs—married, single, wife's maximum earned income relief, improvement in child allowance, forecasting a relaxation of the earnings conditions and income conditions in relation to children for 1964–65—the Chancellor might well have included these in his general sweep-up of personal allowances this time.
10.15 p.m.
I know that there is a certain amount of revenue involved. It is very likely, far example, that the Treasury Minister who is going to reply will say that the main cost of the improvement of these allowances would be in respect of dependent relatives and that that, coupled with the housekeeper relief, might very well cost £7 million or £8 million. I cannot be sure of the amount, of course. I think that when we proposed to increase it to £90 last year we were given an estimate of something like £6¾ million as the cost of the improvement of relief for housekeeper and for dependent relative.
There is no need to detain the Committee on this matter any longer. I am sure that hon. Members can see the point. It is solely a question of whether reliefs which were lying at a low level but which were increased in 1960 should come within the Chancellor's review of reliefs in 1963. I hope it will be possible for the Treasury to offer some hope of an improvement in these allowances. At least, I think that if the Economic Secretary is going to reply we shall look for some convincing explanation of why they are left out and why they should continue to be left out.
This, I suggest, is perhaps a point on which the whole Committee might like to express its view. If these points are not dealt with this year, it is unlikely that they will be dealt with for some years to come—at least, if the present Government remain in office. That is a big question mark which hangs over the whole of our debates, and the optimistic anticipations of many hon. Members

opposite may, of course, be falsified by events. All I can say is that for the moment we are asking the Government in office to do something, and if they wish to vindicate the reputation which they hope to establish for generous administration of Income Tax they will accept these Amendments.

Mr. du Cann: I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, it is appropriate to discuss these four Amendments together for they, indeed, cover the same point. The Committee is much obliged to him. If, after what I have said, he sees fit—I hope to talk him out of any precipitate action—at the conclusion of this short debate to lead his hon. Friends into the Lobby, that is completely understood.

Dame Irene Ward: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, may I have an answer to my speech later? I wanted to make a speech before my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary committed himself.

The Deputy-Chairman: I called the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. du Cann: In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has said, I am ready to give way to her. She is sitting directly behind me. I did not see her rise to her feet, although I looked round.
I have expressed my gratitude to the hon. Member for Sowerby for the fact that we are dealing with these four Amendments together. I should prefer to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth when she has concluded her speech, to which, if she is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir Robert, we shall all look forward.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for giving way. I wanted particularly to raise a point on an Amendment dealing with allowances for widows' children. I think that it is very important that this Amendment should commend itself to my hon. Friend. I cannot understand why there seems to be some objection on the part of the Government to doing anything specific for widowed mothers outside the National Insurance Act in which they have made some additional allowances. Here is an opportunity in the Finance Bill to do something for widowed mothers.
It is tremendously important that attention should be paid to this Amendment. I listened with very great care to what the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said and that is why I rose to speak on this Amendment and to suggest a way to the Economic Secretary whereby he can do justice to widows' children without interfering with the financial balance of the Bill.
If I remember rightly, I made this observation last year. One has to make observations on the Finance Bill for 10 years in succession before one ever arrives at a victory. I would point out to the Economic Secretary, as he has only just got into the Government and so was probably not present when I raised this matter last year, that it would be perfectly possible, and it would conform with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Taxation to adopt a special course in regard to the housekeeper allowance paid to widows and widowers. A resident housekeeper costs quite a considerable amount of money. In other words, if one has a resident housekeeper it indicates that one is a person of reasonable substance. I think that it would be far better to follow the recommendation of the Royal Commission, remove the allowance from people of substantial means for their housekeepers and hand it over to widowed mothers for their children.
If my hon. Friend will consider it, I am quite sure that he will be aware that a large number of widowed mothers go out to work to earn money to try to make up to their children for the lowering of the standard of living through the loss of their fathers. It seems a most extraordinary thing, with all the pressure that has been exerted on what I would call a quite normal Government, that quite normal men—although I notice that there is no woman in the Treasury at Government level—with normal approaches to life should consider that it is right to give substantial allowances for housekeepers to widows and widowers who could well afford them themselves while at the same time denying any increase to a widow who has to play the part of both father and mother to her children. Not only has she to try to earn money to maintain the standard of living for her children but she

is also subject to the earnings rule. It is an absolute scandal and I cannot understand it. My hon. Friend is always most polite and he makes the most excellent speeches. He could make a very much better one if he would just give attention to what I am saying and do what I ask.

Mr. du Cann: I come now, one might say, to the meat of the matter. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has suggested by the Amendment in line 14 that the housekeeper allowance of £75 for widows and widowers should be increased to £100. By the first Amendment in line 18, he suggests that the dependent relative allowance of £75 should be increased similarly to £100. By the second Amendment in line 18, he suggests that the allowance of £40 given to a taxpayer compelled by old age or infirmity to depend on the services of a daughter resident with and maintained by him should be increased to £60, and, similarly, by the Amendment in page 11, line 6, he suggests that the special alternative allowance of £40 introduced in 1960 should be increased to £60. Those are all straightforward arguments which are perfectly well understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) who said some very pleasant things about me which I greatly appreciate—whether she will say the same after I have finished is another matter—wants to recast the whole structure in relation to certain of these allowances. If I may, I will treat the argument on these four points as a whole, with just two exceptions.
First, I take a small point on the Amendment in line 14. I do not make much of it. The Amendment refers to Section 214 of the 1952 Act. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, if one were to accept the Amendment, one would have to take into account also the provisions of Sections 215 and 218 of the Act.

Mr. Houghton: Mr. Houghton indicated assent.

Mr. du Cann: I see that the hon. Gentleman nods acknowledgement. I make that point only to establish for the record that these three Sections are complementary and interlocking.

Mr. Houghton: Yes.

Mr. du Cann: My second point relates to the allowance for the services of


a daughter. This allowance was strongly criticised by the Royal Commission as anomalous, the reason being that it is an allowance for the taxpayers' disability but depending upon the accident of his having a daughter as opposed to any other specially named relative available to look after him.
I return now to the main theme. My right hon. Friend considered this matter most carefully before framing his Budget, but he decided that there is no case for increasing these particular allowances this year. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, the housekeeper and dependent relative allowances were increased as recently as 1960, only three years ago. The special £40 alternative allowance was a new allowance in that year. The married and single allowances which we have dealt with in this Budget have stood at their present level since 1955, eight years ago. The present child allowances were fixed in 1957, six years ago.
In other words, the allowances which we are discussing on these Amendments, with the single exception of the allowance in respect of a daughter's services, which, I suggest, has to be considered quite differently, were improved quite recently, only three years ago. The other allowances with which we have dealt were fixed several years ago, a substantial time ago, I suggest. It, therefore, seemed to us right to give priority to the older allowances.
There is a further point here. The hon. Gentleman was arguing to some extent that, if it were appropriate to raise certain allowances, it was probably appropriate to raise the majority of the allowances in step, so to speak, having these allowances in mind particularly. I understand that point, but the general answer to that argument is this. It seems to us that it does not take sufficient account of the Chancellor's budgetary purpose this year. His proposals on personal taxation do not involve a straight increase in allowances but are intended to let all taxpayers off the tax on what is, at present, the first £60 of taxable income, with further benefit for married and family men.
10.30 p.m.
One of my right hon. Friend's main aims has been to raise the starting point for tax liabilties all round but without allowing the full benefit from the in-

creased allowances to run all the way up the scale. Therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that the changes which he has proposed ought necessarily to involve an all-round improvement in the secondary personal allowances. If this were done, it would be to some extent out of step, not in step, with what he has done in his Budget. As I have explained, he has not thought fit to increase again this year allowances which were increased as recently as 1960, and in the case of the daughter's allowance he remains convinced that there is an anomaly here and that it would be quite wrong to act in this case.
All taxpayers entitled to the allowances to which these Amendments relate will benefit from the changes in the basic personal allowances and some of them from the increases in the child allowances. It would favour them unduly, perhaps, to give them increases also in the secondary personal allowances. I hope that that passage of my speech at least will convince my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth that we are not entirely without heart in the Treasury even if some of us for the time being as yet are childless. I hope that my hon. Friend will not hold it against us that we do not have a woman in the Treasury—she was good enough to say at least that we are normal—and I hope she may think that the arguments which I have put forward indicate, I hope clearly, that we have endeavoured to think all this out with a great deal of care and to proceed logically.
I come now to a point which I particularly want to make. I would not wish my hon. Friend, or any Member of the Committee, to think that we take the view that changes in these allowances are ruled out for all time; nothing of the sort. There is, however, logic in what we have done. We are proceeding in steps and it is appropriate for us to have acted as we have done this year. Perhaps one can look forward to other things in the future.
The precise cost in a full year of dealing with these allowances in the way that the hon. Member for Sowerby suggests would be £11¼ million, which is not an enormous sum in matters of this sort and is very different from the figure involved in the Amendments by the Liberal Party—whose Members again, are absent from


our deliberations—in suggesting that we should gaily spend £300 million. The truth is that looking at the logic of my right hon. Friend's proposals, which I warmly support, this group of proposals would not have had a proper place this year.

Mr. Mitchison: The appeal for logic strikes me as rather curious. Logic in these cases means going back over a series of years and finding to what extent the various allowances have kept step with one another during that time. That may be history of a remarkable character, but it has nothing whatever to do with logic. It is about time that the Treasury ceased looking at things this way and considered the ordinary, commonsense question of whether these allowances are sufficient for the purpose for which they are given. It never seems to occur to the Treasury to do that.
When I look at the allowances, my conclusion is that they are not sufficient. The funniest bit of logic is that when there is an allowance which one believes to be anomalous, it is put at the lowest possible figure. It is neither more nor less anomalous if too little is given by way of the allowance. It is time that the Government of the day considered the only question that matters, which is whether these allowances are sufficient for the purpose—that is to say, whether they are fair allowances, because one cannot differentiate unduly between one case and another, to meet the type of expense which is involved in each case.
They are all hard cases in one form or another. I quite agree with what has been said: when talking about a dependent daughter, one might say, "Why a daughter? Why not a sister?" Indeed, we have a new Clause down about it, and we shall be hoping for the Government's support when we come to it. They might like to extend their anomaly; it might look better if they did so.
Seriously, and in all conscience, nowadays the only question that matters is: are these allowances enough for the purpose for which they are intended? That means, to meet additional expense arising out of real hardship in some form or another. I am sure that the Committee has it well in mind that when we are talking about £40 or £75 or £100, all that really comes

to anybody out of it is tax at the standard rate on those figures. It is totally absurd, I should have thought, to suppose that they were adequate now for the purpose for which they were originally intended and still ought to be intended.
On those grounds the Opposition are going to divide against the Government on these Amendments. We shall spare the Committee the excessive pedestrian locomotion of walking through the Division Lobby four times, but it must not be taken that the selection is any more than one of convenience. We propose to divide on the first Amendments dealing with £75 and £40, and only on those for no other reason than to save the Committee too much walking while we establish our principle in the matter.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Economic Secretary made a very plausible little speech, and he has a very fetching way with him, but I think he has overlooked one factor with regard to the housekeeper allowance. That is that all wives and husbands have a shock when they become widows or widowers to discover that suddenly they are classed as single persons.
This seems to them, particularly if they have a family to bring up, an absolute affront. That is the moment when men in particular suddenly realise the size of the loss they have sustained and how much they undervalued the services of the wife while she was living. To find that they are classed as single when they suddenly have all the domestic responsibilities falling upon their shoulders comes to them as a very great injustice and indignity. When this is raised with the Treasury the answer always is, "But we help the widower in certain ways, in particular through the housekeeper allowance."
I have been raising this point for some years. I remember taking up the matter in 1961 when one of my constituents wrote to me:
I have just suffered the grievous loss of my wife aged 30 … I am now given to understand that despite the fact that I have two daughters aged five and eight to care for, a home and all the worry and responsibilities which go with it, by some strange twist of a legal brain I now become for tax purposes classed as a single man. Surely by present-day standards when the majority of wives of working men have to go out to work to keep their family respectable, a man should not,


besides losing her earning capacity, her love and companionship, suffer a body blow from the Welfare State by losing his claim to £100 personal allowance.
I took this up with the Economic Secretary at that time, and he confirmed that the married man's tax allowance would no longer be available to my constituent. He went on:
The suggestion has frequently been made that a basic Income Tax allowance higher than the single person's allowance of £140 should be given to widows and widowers and particularly to those of them who have homes of their own to maintain but successive Governments have been unable to agree to this.
He went on to say that although my constituent
… will be entitled only to the £140 basic personal allowance, he will of course be able to continue to claim the allowances for his children. Furthermore, he can claim in addition either an allowance of £75 if he employs a resident housekeeper or, if he cannot claim this £75 allowance, an extra allowance of £40 towards his extra expenses in looking after his children.
That was the Government's answer to the problems of the widows and widowers. Despite this, the problem has gone on rankling with these people. I had a letter only the other day from another constituent widower asking me to raise once again the fact that in his view widowers do not get a fair deal because they are classed as single persons even though they have families and homes to keep.
It is with this in mind that I think we have a right to impress upon the Treasury that the housekeeping allowance is something which is not just a kind of ex gratia payment made out of the kindness of the Government's heart but a serious contribution to the serious domestic problems faced by these people. They should, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said, re-examine this matter to see whether the provision is adequate to close this gap which the people we are concerned with feel so acutely.

This housekeeping allowance was £50 before the war. It is only £75 today. Can we in all conscience say that it has been increased pro rata to the absolutely fantastic increase in the cost of living? Are we not in fact progressively worsening the position of widows and widowers with children who need to employ this kind of help? Are we, therefore, not increasing the violent sense of injustice they feel through being classed as single persons when they have inherited these domestic responsibilities? I sincerely suggest to the Government that our Amendment is very modest and entirely realistic, bearing in mind that the allowance was £50 before the war.

Mr. Harold Davies: I believe that the Economic Secretary said that the Government were looking at these anomalies, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said he hoped that they would make a concession. I hope that the Government will think about this. Some of us have had problems like this and even the Income Tax inspectors sympathise with the case of a single man whose sister acts as his housekeeper. I dare not follow that matter any more because I shall be ruled out of order.
The case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is unanswerable, particularly in view of the fact that this allowance was £50 before the war. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee sympathise with these cases. If the Economic Secretary can find a way to do what we ask he will please not only hon. Members but will do justice to these people.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128, Noes, 198.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Blyton, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Ainsley, William
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Cliffs, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Collick, Percy


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bradley, Tom
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshlre, W.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Cronin, John


Beaney, Alan
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dalyell, Tam


Carmichael, Neil
Blackburn, F.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)




Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John (Attercllffe)
Robertson, Bohn (Paisley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger, George
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Dempsey, dames
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Diamond, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, William


Dodds, Norman
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, Edward


Donnelly, Desmond
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Jullus (Aston)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George
Small, William


Fitch, Alan
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Eric
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
McBride, N.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McCann, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McInnes, James
Thornton, Ernest


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ginsburg, David
Manuel, Archie
Tomney, Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy
Warbey, William


Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward
Weitzman, David


Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Healey, Dents
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, D. J. (heath)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
O'Malley, B. K.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oram, A. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hilton, A. V.
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Holman, Percy
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hooson, H. E.
Pargiter, G. A.
Woof, Robert


Houghton, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence
Wyatt, Woodrow


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pentland, Norman
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hoy, James H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reynolds, G. W.
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.


Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)





NOES


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Allason, James
du Cann, Edward
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Duncan, Sir James
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerana, Cdr. J. S.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Emery, Peter
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Balniel, Lord
Errington, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony


Barber, Anthony
Farr, John
Kimball, Marcus


Barter, John
Finlay, Graeme
Kirk, Peter


Batstord, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos &amp; Fhm)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Leather, Sir Edwin


Biffen, John
Freeth, Denzil
Leavey, J. A.


Bingham, R. M.
Gammans, Lady
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Gibson-Watt, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bishop, F. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Black, Sir Cyril
Gllmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Longbottom, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Goodhart, Philip
Lovers, Walter H.


Boyle, Re. Hon. Sir Edward
Gower, Raymond
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Brewis, John
Green, Alan
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Gresham Cooke, R.
MacArthur, Ian


Bullard, Denys
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gurden, Harold
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs)


Channon, H. P. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Macmillian, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)


Cleaver, Leonard
Harvie Anderson, Miss



Cole, Norman
Hay, John
Maddan, Martin


Cooke, Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Cooper, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marten, Nett


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hendry, Forbes
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Mawby, Ray


Costain, A. P.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Coulson, Michael
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hocking, Philip N.
Miscampbell, Norman


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Critchley, Julian
Hollingworth, John
Morgan, William


Cunningham, Knox
Hopkins, Alan
Morrison, John


Curran, Charles
Hornby, It. P.
Heave, Airey


Currie, G. B. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Dalkeith, Earl of
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael


Dance, James
Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
James, David
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Doughty, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Peel, John







Perclval, Ian
Seymour, Leslie
Thornton-Kemeley, Sir Colin


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Sharpies, Richard
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Pitman, Sir James
Shaw, M.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Pitt, Dame Edith
Shepherd, William
Turner, Colin


Prior, J. M. L.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Pym, Francis
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Ramsden, James
Spelt, Rupert
Warder, David


Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Walker, Peter


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Stodart, J. A.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Rees, Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rees-Davlee, W. R.
Storey, Sir Samuel
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Studholme, Sir Henry
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Ridsdale, Julian
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wise, A. R.


Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)
Talbot, John E.
Wolrlge-Gordon, Patrick


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Woollam, John


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Worsley, Marcus


Roots, William
Teeling, Sir William



Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Temple, John M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Russell, Ronald
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Mr. McLaren.

Amendment proposed: In page 10, line 18, at end insert:
(5) In section 217 of the Act of 1952 (claimant depending on services of a daughter) for the reference to £40 (inserted by section 14(4) of the Finance Act 1953) there shall be

substituted a reference to £60.—[Mr. Mitchison.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 128, Noes 201.

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[10.53 p m


Abse, Leo
Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman


Baxter, William (Stlrlingahtre, W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
price, J. T. (Weathoughton)


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Probers, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Lelcs, S.W.)
Hooson, H. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St, Pancras, N.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Houghton, Douglas
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
HoweH, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Short, Edward


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Small, William


Cline, Michael
Jeger, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Swingler, Stephen


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cronin, John
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Thornton, Ernest


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Thorpe, Jeremy


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
King, Dr. Horace
Tomney, Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Wainwright, Edwin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Warbey, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Loughlin, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Weitzman, David


Diamond, John
McCann, John
Whitlock, William


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Wilkins, W. A.


Donnelly, Desmond
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, Archie
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Roy
Winterbottom, R. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Milne, Edward
Wyatt, Woodrow


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John



George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David
O'Malley, B. K.
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.


Gourlay, Harry
Oram, A. E.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Ashton, Sir Hubert
Balniel, Lord


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Atkins, Humphrey
Barber, Anthony


Allason, James
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Barter, John




Batsford, Brian
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Peel, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harvle Anderson, Miss
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hay, John
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bingham, R. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitman, Sir James


Birch, At. Hon. Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bishop, F. P.
Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, James


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hocking, Philip N.
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, At. Hon. Martin


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hollingworth, John
Rees, Hugh


Bullard, Denys
Hopkins, Alan
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hornby, R. P.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hornsby-Smith At. Hon. Dame P.
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, H. P. G.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeiey)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robinson, At. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portamth, W.)
Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roots, William


Cleaver, Leonard
James, David
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cole, Norman
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Ronald


Cooper, A. E.
Jones, At. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Seymour, Leslie


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharpies, Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shaw, M.


Costain, A. P.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Shepherd, William


Coulson, Michael
Kershaw, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kirk, Peter
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Timothy
Speir, Rupert


Cunningham, Knox
Leather, Sir Edwin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Curran, Charles
Leaver, J. A.
Stodart, J. A.


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart-Scott, Cot. Sir Malcolm


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Longbottom, Charles
Summers, Sir Spencer


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Longden, Gilbert
Talbot, John E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Loveys, Walter H.
Tepsell, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r,Moss Side)


du Cann, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Teellng, Sir William


Duncan, Sir James
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclean, sirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Macleod, At. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Farr, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Haroid (Bromiey)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumtries)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, At. Hon. Sir John


Freeth, Denzil
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gammans, Lady
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Weldor, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker-Smith, At. Hon. Sir Derek


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhart, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gower, Raymond
Morgan, William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Green, Alan
Morrison, John
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Heave, Alrey
Wise, A. R.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gurden, Harold
Noble, At. Hon. Michael
Woollam, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Worsley, Marcus


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pannell, Norman (Klrkdale)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclsef'd)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. McLaren and




Mr. McArthur.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 24 to 26 and to insert—


does not exceed £50
a deduction equal to 5s. 9d. for each pound of the relevant amount.


does exceed £50 but does not exceed £100
the same deduction as if the relevant amount were £50, plus 3s. 9d. for each pound of the relevant amount in excess of £50.


This is a matter I referred to in the speech I made on Second Reading,

namely, that the change in the belts of the reduced rates means that the lowest rate of tax is now 4s. in the £. Under the Chancellor's proposals, the first £100 of taxable income will be charged at 4s., the next £200 at 6s., and thereafter at the standard rate of 7s. 9d.
Incidentally, it is extremely difficult to calculate from the table set out in subsection (5) of Clause 12 exactly what the reduced rates are. I ask any hon. Members who can apply their minds to this


complicated subject at this late hour of night to try to make something of the table on page 10 of the Bill. The new table is to be substituted for the old one in the 1952 Act. It is to say this:

"Where the relevant amount—


does not exceed £
a deduction equal to 3s. 9d. for each pound of the relevant amount."

That is fairly straightforward. Three shillings and nine pence taken from 7s. 9d. equals 4s. It goes on to say:


"does exceed £100 but does not exceed £300
the same deduction as if the relevant amount were £100, plus 1s. 9d. for each pound of the relevant amount in excess of £100.


exceeds £300
the same deduction as if the relevant amount were £300."

I have never read such gibberish in all my life. If any layman can tell from that what the reduced rates are, he is a better man than I am. Yet this is what we have to work on at five minutes past eleven at night. To jump from exemption to 4s. in the £, which after earned income relief is an effective rate of 3s. 2d., is a pretty big jump.

I ask the Committee to consider that in 1955 the reduced rate bands were 2s. 6d. on the first £100, 5s. on the next £150, 7s, on the next £150, and then 9s.—the standard rate. From 1955 to 1963, when the standard rate at the beginning was 8s. 6d., the reduced band rates were 1s. 9d. on the first £60 of taxable income, 4s. 3d. on the next £150, 6s. 3d. on the next £150, and on the balance 8s. 6d. until 1959 and then it was reduced to 7s. 9d. The top rate was not levied until after the first £400 of taxable income in 1955. Since 1955 the standard rate has operated after the first £360 of taxable income. It now operates after the first £300 of taxable income. Since 1955 the standard rate has operated first after £400 of taxable income, secondly after £360 of taxable income, and now under the Bill after £300 of taxable income, which suggests that as the Chancellor is lifting the allowances he is narrowing the gap between exemption and tax at the standard rate. We think this is a bit steep.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has drafted these changes so skilfully that he takes more people out of effective tax without carrying the benefits in the same proportion right up the scale.

Nevertheless, we feel that some easement of entry into the band of actual tax should be introduced into the new table. As I said on Second Reading, it is all very well to say that everybody who is paying tax at the moment will pay a little less tax under the proposals in the Bill. This is true, but as people who are now exempt from tax become liable for tax in the future they will feel that to jump from no tax to an effective rate of 3s. 2d. in the £ is a rather steep level of marginal tax.

Therefore, in case hon. Members opposite have not been able to make out what our Amendment means, any more than they can make out what the Bill means, we propose that the first £50 of taxable income shall be charged at 2s., the next £50 of taxable income at 4s. and then the next £200 at 6s. What, in effect, we are proposing is to cut the first £100 zone in two, which the Chancellor proposes should all be at the 4s. rate, and substitute for it half—that is, £50—at 2s. and the other half at 4s., and then the 6s. rate for the next band of £200. We are not proposing to move to expand the scale but to alter the incidence of it by reducing the rate for the first E50 of taxable income.

At this hour of the night one has to abbreviate one's grievances and, therefore, I hope I have made the point. It would be possible to go back through the history of this matter and substantiate our case by more arguments of detail. The Economic Secretary, or the Financial Secretary, or the Chief Secretary, or all three of them, may form a formidable trio in reply to this formidable case, but I hope that the case will appeal to them as being reasonable.

One cannot bump people up from no tax to the 4s. range without somebody grumbling about it. Hon. Members can be quite sure that in the future this point will obviously be the subject of many representations and Amendments to Finance Bills, and the hon. Member who is to reply might as well meet trouble more than half way by dealing with it now.

Mr. du Cann: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) certainly has a reasonable case, on the face of it. I hope to be able to give him a reasoned reply and to convince him that the arguments on the other side are even stronger


than the case which he so skilfully deployed.
First, on his criticism that these words appearing in the table are unclear, I think that is perfectly true of the layman, and it is perfectly true of those people who, perhaps, might come across this table for the first time. On the other hand, I think that study makes it very much clearer. I have myself asked the same question, and I understand that the Financial Secretary has asked it even more strongly than I have. We are both convinced by the advice that we have received, namely that the table never has caused any trouble and, as the hon. Gentleman will see, it follows on previous legislation and it is important that it should be in context.
Be that as it may, whether or not improvements might or might not be effected in the future, at least I hope to some extent to be able to explain the matter to him clearly. In any case, I think it is probably unnecessary, because I know very well that he understands these matters infinitely better than I do.
The Amendment proposes to substitute a more favourable scale of reduced rate reliefs to that proposed by the Chancellor. The details of my right hon. Friend's proposals are these: coupled with his proposal to increase basic personal allowances, he proposes to have reduced rate bands of £100 at 4s.—that is to say, 7s. 9d. minus 3s. 9d.—for the first section of the table; £200 at 6s.—that is to say, 7s. 9d. minus 1s. 9d.—instead of, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the present £60 at 1s. 9d., £150 at 4s. 3d. and £150 at 6s. 3d.
The Amendment proposes to keep the lowest reduced rate band very near the present £60 at 1s. 9d., and suggests that instead of paying 4s. on the first £100 of taxable income, the taxpayer should pay at 2s. on the first £50 of taxable income and at 4s. on the next £50. In other words, and in simple English, my right hon. Friend has proposed two steps up to the standard rate. The hon. Gentleman says, first, that this is too steep, that the point of entry is too high, and proposes a smoother graduation with more steps, rather like the present scale—that is to say, unless we alter it by passing this Clause of the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
On the point that the point of entry—

4s.—is too high, I know that the hon. Gentleman feels this matter keenly, because he was good enough to refer to it in his Budget speech, and gave us notice of it. He said that many exempted by the Chancellor's proposals would soon be taxable again with a rise in income—good old Tory prosperity one might say in parenthesis—and these would take the rap at 4s. in the £ instead of at 1s. 9d. on the first part of their taxable income and that this was too high as a marginal rate to begin with.
The effect of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to widen the first band of income taxable very near to the present 1s. 9d. reduced rate so that, in effect, there would be something near a straight increase of £50 in basic personal allowance. That is what it would amount to. I will discuss the implications of this in a moment, because it is important to understand it.
The real choice before my right hon. Friend was to exempt a large number from tax altogether and have a lower reduced band at 4s., or to exempt far fewer and take driblets of tax from large numbers under such a scheme as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I think everyone knows that with weekly deductions by way of P.A.Y.E., particularly when dealing with small sums of tax, driblets are a nuisance to the Revenue, to the employer and to the man one is taxing.
The measures which my right hon. Friend has adopted will exempt over 3 million taxpayers, a very large number, and will give some help to married men over and above the relief to single persons, at a cost which he feels in his judgment he can face. They will exempt a large number of taxpayers who pay relatively small amounts of tax, and I cannot help feeling, and I hope that the Committee will agree with us, that it was a sensible thing to aim at, and, indeed, a sensible thing to achieve.
Now I come to the point about smoother graduation. I think that this is frankly a matter of taste, on the whole. The hon. Gentleman referred to precedents. I have a number in front of me, but I will not go into them in detail except to say that I do not think that there is any reason why the three-tier system, so to speak, of reduced rates, which has applied in recent years, should be retained for ever.
From 1920–21 to 1945–46, which is a long time—over 25 years—there was only one reduced rate band. The Committee will recall that we now have two. There were two from 1946–47 to 1951–52—in other words, when we were pleased to have a Labour Government looking after our affairs. Also for 15 years from 1920–21 the reduced rate was half the standard rate, so I do not think there is anything very much in the argument of precedent from the point of view of advancing the case which the hon. Gentleman deployed.
A final point which I should like to make before coming to the question of cost is this. The effective rate of tax on total income is, of course, very much lower than the marginal rate, but I will not take the Committee right through the Financial Statement. I think we are all aware of it.

Mr. Houghton: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to say that 4s. in the lowest band is the highest rate since 1941–42?

Mr. du Cann: Yes, I am sure that that is right; but it does not mean necessarily that it is wrong—

Mr. Mitchison: Is it logical?

Mr. du Cann: —because, if it is accepted that it is appropriate to take out of tax about 3 million people, and I think it right and proper to do that, it must follow that the method adopted to do it is the correct one. In any case, if we can look forward to the improvement in prosperity to which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer in his speech in the Budget debate, the point does not seem to he one of very great importance.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asks whether it is logical. Whether it is logical I do not really know. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend has produced a first-class Budget which I warmly support, not least this part of it.
Now, the question of cost. The proposal advanced by the hon. Member for Sowerby to have a 2s. rate of tax on the first £50 of taxable income instead of the Chancellor's 4s. rate, while leaving the Budget proposals otherwise unchanged—this is the point—would cost no less than £74 million this year, 1963–64, and £98 million in a full year. I am sure that the

Committee will agree that to add this to the cost of my right hon. Friend's other proposals would be out of the question.
I quite understand the points which the hon. Gentleman has made. We have given them thought, as he will appreciate from my reply. On the other hand, I think that the anxieties which he has are not, so to speak, as serious as they might be. I am certain that the results of my right hon. Friend's proposals will be thoroughly in everyone's interest. While I welcome the debate, and not least the courtesy of the hon. Member in curtailing his remarks at this time of night, I must tell him that we cannot accept his Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: We may be content to differ and to show our difference in the Lobby on this question, which is, in some ways, an important though not a very difficult or large one, but it would be ungracious to divide the Committee without thanking the Chancellor warmly for having accepted in this Budget the main proposal of the Opposition last year, which was supported, on the whole, by the same kind of argument as that advanced by the Economic Secretary tonight. It is late, but not too late for an acknowledgment of the gracious conversion of the Government to the main proposal put to them last year.
The band proposal was a good one, and it was made without the confusion between rises in money income and rises in real income which, to me, seem to cloud a little the clarity of the hon. Gentleman's speech. If a rise in Tory prosperity means a rise in money incomes, the question whether that is or is not inflation may depend on an increase of productivity which, so far, they have not achieved.

Mr. John McKay: I am sorry to intervene at this point, because of the time, but I wish to make a few observations on the whole general question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that some people do not like to listen at all unless they are speaking themselves, but this is an important subject and there are some aspects of it which should be emphasised.
At a time like this, 25 years after 1938, one expects that when wages are negotiated for any class of people, the cost


of living should be taken into consideration. In 1938 and 1939, the tax arrangement meant that a married man earning £220 paid no tax. Surely, we should agree to give to all taxpayers a basic purchasing power equal to that of the 1938 income of £220. That is the chief reason why I want to speak against the changes, because they are not good enough.
I want to speak against the general idea that on this occasion the Tory Government have done a tremendous job. One must emphasise what a great boon

it would be if they would implement some of our Amendments. Whenever a Tory Government want to implement a worthwhile proposal for the section of the community that supports them, they do not worry about giving £83 million to the richest people, to the Surtax payers. The time has, however, arrived when we should provide for all taxpayers a basic purchasing power equal to the basis which was laid down in 1938 and 1939.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 110.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[11.28 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Allason, James
Gresham Cooke, R.
Morgan, William


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. F. G.
Morrison, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Curden, Harold
Heave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel (Chlppenham)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, At. Hon. Michael


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barber, Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pannel, Norman (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Goa &amp; Fhm)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E,)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bingham, R. M.
Harvey Anderson, Miss
Pitman, Sir James


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Pitt, Dame Edith


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Bourne-Arlon, A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Boyd-Carpenter, At. Hon. John
Hendry, Forbes
Pym, Francis


Boyle, At. Hon. Sir Edward
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Ramsden, James


Brewis, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, At. Hon. Martin


Bullard, Denys
Hocking, Philip N.
Rees, Hugh


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hollingworth, John
Renton, At. Hon. David


Chataway, Christopher
Hopkins, Alan
Ridsdale, Julian


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornhy, R. P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Porternth, W.)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cleaver, Leonard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roots, William


Cole, Norman
James, David
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Ronald


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Seymour, Leslie


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharpies, Richard Shaw, M.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shepherd, William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton



Crawley, Aidan
Kershaw, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Critchley, Julian
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cunningham, Knox
Kirk, Peter
Smithers, Peter


Curran, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Speir, Rupert


Currie, G. B. H.
Leather, Sir Edwin
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, J. A.


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Deedes, At. Hon. W. F.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Longbottom, Charles
Studholme, Sir Henry


Doughty, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Summers, Sir Spencer


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Tapaell, Peter


du Cann, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, Sir William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclay, At. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Farr, John
Msclean, SirFitzroy(Bute &amp; N. Ayre)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macleod, At. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Touche, At. Hon. Sir Gordon


Fraser, tan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Turner, Colin


Freeth, Denzil
MacPherson Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gibson-Watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, central)
Maudling, At. Hon. Reginald
Walder, David


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Peter


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker-Smith, At. Hon. Sir Derek


Goodhart, Philip
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)




Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Woollam, John
Mr. Graeme Finlay and


Wise, A. R.
Woreley, Marcus
Mr. Brian Batsford.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.


Ainsley, William
Harper, Joseph
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Healey, Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingehire, W.)
Herblson, Miss Margaret
Probert, Arthur


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. Y.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hooson, H. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Douglas
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hoy, James H.
Ross, William


Carmichael, Nell
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Short, Edward


Castle, Mrs. Barabara
Hunter, A. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Swingler, Stephen


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Tomney, Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. Horace
Wainwright, Edwin


Davies, liar (Gower)
Lawson, George
Warbey, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Watkins, Tudor


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Weitzman, David


Diamond, John
McBride, N.
Whitlock, William


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Wilkins, W. A.


Donnelly, Desmond
McKay, John (Wantland)
Williams, D. J. (Heath)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallaliou, E. L. (Bragg)
Williams, LI. (Abertiliery)


Fitch, Alan
Manuel, Archie
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Woof, Robert


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Wyatt, Woodrow


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R.



Ginsburg, David
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, B. K.
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.


Grey, Charles
Oram, A. E.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out "£325" and to insert "£350".

The Chairman (Sir W. AnstrutherGray): I think that we may also discuss the three following Amendments, the first in the name of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), in line 1, leave out "£325" and insert "£400"; the second in the name of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in line 4, leave out "£520" and insert "£550"; and the third in the name of the hon. Member for Dorset, West, in line 4, leave out "£520" and insert "£650".

Mr. Houghton: That would be convenient, Sir William.
This group of Amendments deals with age exemptions. At present the limit of income for a single person over 65 and upon which total exemption can be claimed is £300 a year. The Chancellor proposes to raise that to £325. In the case of a married couple, one of whom is over 65, exemption can be claimed if their

joint total income is at present not more than £480. The Chancellor proposes to raise that limit to £520. My first Amendment proposes to raise the Chancellor's figure of £325 to £350 and my second to raise the married man's limit from £520 to £550.
What the Chancellor proposes to do is welcome and fully justified as being in harmony with the other changes which he has made, but he has not gone quite far enough. I drew attention earlier to the fact that the tax relief which the Chancellor's new limits will give as compared with the normal tax payer will actually be less than at present, notwithstanding the lifting of the limit of income.
For example, I would say that a single person over 65 with an income of £300 a year is being relieved for the year 1962–63 of approximately £8 10s. tax. By that I mean that the under-65 taxpayer on £300 a year would be paying about £8 10s., but a person over 65 on the same income and granted total exemption would thereby be relieved of £8 10s. tax which he would have to


pay but for the provision of age exemption. Under the Chancellor's proposals to raise the limit for a single person from £300 to £325, the amount of tax by which the old person will be relieved is less at £325 than it was at £300—I estimate by about £2 10s. a year.
Similar figures can be given for a married couple one of whom is over 65. At present, the person under 65 on £480 a year would be paying about £17 tax, but a person over 65 would be paying nothing and thereby be relieved of about £17 tax. For the forthcoming year on a limit of £520 the tax relief for a person of 65 and over would be about £12 10s., so that in both cases the actual tax relief given on the higher exemption limits is lower than the tax relief now given on the lower limits.
It can be argued that since the general level of taxation is being lowered, the person receiving the benefit of age exemption cannot expect to maintain the same relative tax relief as before, and that since everybody's tax is going down, the relative position of the person getting age exemption as compared with a person who is not will be modified as well. That argument might be sustainable if it were not for what the Chancellor has done with small income relief, for by increasing the small incomes relief limit from £400 to £450, a jump of £50 and not £25, the tax relief for 1963–64 will be greater than it was before, as one would expect it to be. This proposal is a matter of relativities and it is in that context that I put it to the Committee.
11.45 p.m.
It is difficult to decide which is the right point at which to stop age exemption. We know the problems which arise in cases of this kind, where a person is exempt up to a point, and then gets marginal relief up to a further point, and then comes into full taxation. We heard a lot about it several years ago, and two years ago the Chancellor quite obstinately refused to increase the age relief but did so the following year. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has pointed out, the work of the Opposition in recent years has been one of tireless endeavour to convert the Government to clearer thinking on these matters, and I am happy to say that, though belatedly, our efforts have been rewarded.
No Finance Bill has ever contained so many things that so many people on this side of the Committee have been urging for so long. We are grateful for that. It is thought that keeps up our energies and enthusiasm throughout the night. We shall not relax our efforts to convert the Government. Not this year—and it will be too late next year—but perhaps in about 1975, they may come back again and take up the threads of age relief where we leave off.
I hope that the point that I have made appeals to the Chancellor. I am grateful to him for remaining to hear our debates. I am sure that the discussions in Committee on the Finance Bill must be wearisome in the extreme to the Chancellor, because he has been through all this before. He has chewed it over and discussed it with the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary; he has had the permanent officials round him, who have been saying, "Do this, do that; do not do this; do not do that; if you do this something else will automatically happen". At the end he must be bewildered and tired of it all. But he has come here to listen to it all over again.
Who would be Chancellor—except my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. South-East (Mr. Callaghan)? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?] He is on a visit to one of our friends and allies, establishing friendly relations with the Kennedy Administration, with which he will have close contacts in a few months from now. I am sure that hon. Members opposite will regard that as a very worthy expedition for my hon. Friend to make. After all, there have been enough discords between this Government and the Government of the United States, and it is up to somebody to go out and cement the bonds of friendship.
I have no desire to distract the Committee from the real point of the Amendments. I hope that we shall get a favourable reply from the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: On an earlier Amendment I dealt with some problems of the over-65s—the retired people—and I do not wish to weary the Committee with a repetition of those arguments. I want to express my gratitude to the Chancellor for the concession


that he has made in respect of age exemption, which covers a rather wider range of people than the earlier Amendment, since it deals with income from all sources. But I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to look at this matter in the future. He has given only £25 to a single person and £40 to a married person on this occasion. The cost is not inordinate—only £1 million this year and £2 million in a full year. That shows that this is not a very expensive way of helping a very deserving class of people. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has dealt with this problem of exemptions. Of course it is not only those over 65 who are in this position, and it might not be just to have too big a differential. If my right hon. Friend cannot give more than £2 million on this occasion, I hope that he will boar this in mind on another occasion as a good way to help retired people of whom there are so many in my constituency.

Captain W. Elliot: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) who, for the second time tonight, has skilfully picked out these marginal cases for which help could be provided by the expenditure of a comparatively small sum of money. After the Budget speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor I received a number of letters drawing attention to a remark he made about £700 a year being a modest income. No doubt my right hon. Friend had in mind a married man still in work who had a family. But, like my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, I have a constituency in which there are a large number of pensioners, and they have to live on £350 or £400 a year. They are over 65 and they are men and women who saved when saving was difficult. A concession such as is asked for would help them very much. It would also encourage others to save. I hope that we shall not get so engrossed with State pension schemes that we forget to encourage people to save for themselves.

Dame Irene Ward: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). One is told by the powers that be of the difficulty in helping these people and that is only

too true. But on occasions when something could be done for them there is always some reason advanced why the help given should be on a modest scale.
I think it worth while to put on record that it was my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence who, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, had the idea of trying to help these people. The idea was well received and everyone was delighted. But since then the problems of these people have been accentuated. There has been legislation relating to rents, rates have increased and there have been increases in the cost of fuel, so that their situation has become well-nigh intolerable.
It is no use saying that these people can obtain National Assistance. They have saved their money and it is better that people should be thrifty and be encouraged to save than that money should be given from the Treasury. The little that we can do to help them should be done more generously. Ministers take a great deal of pride in making reductions in the Purchase Tax on various commodities. But these people have not sufficient money to take advantage of such reductions.

Mr. Mitchison: I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady wants to do something for these people. Why not repeal the Rent Act?

Dame Irene Ward: We are at present discussing the Finance Bill. I have always pursued the line, and I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will agree, of taking every opportunity I can to get on with the job to which I have set my mind. I point out, however, that whatever the disadvantages of the Rent Act, if the policies advocated by the parties opposite—both the Socialists and the Liberals—were put into operation, these people would not have any money at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Liberals?"] Of course, they are never here. I always insist on making a speech on this subject and never miss an opportunity of speaking for these people. I hope that something a little more generous will be done for them.

Mr. Barber: I think that it would be helpful if I were first to say something about my right hon. Friend's proposal


for age exemption and then to consider this Amendment.
As the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has reminded the Committee, under the existing law age exemption is granted to a single person of 65 or over if his income does not exceed £300 and to a married couple where either the husband or the wife is 65 or over and the joint income does not exceed £480. The proposal is to raise the exemption to £325 and £520 respectively, and the proposal of the hon. Member is to raise the amounts to £350 and £550 respectively, while the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) is to raise them to £400 and £650 respectively.
The intention behind the age exemption is to give special relief from tax to elderly people living on quite small incomes which they are not able to augment in any way. For this reason, at the bottom end of the income scale it gives more favourable treatment than would be given by changing the rate of tax on the basis of the ordinary reliefs and allowances. It is, therefore, equivalent in effect to a special increase in personal allowances for elderly people with incomes in the range affected which exceed the amounts which would be covered by the ordinary amount of income relief or age relief and ordinary personal allowances; but, precisely because the intention is to help people with quite small incomes, the relief does not amount to giving, more favourable allowances all the way up the income scale.
The benefit from the proposed increases in the age exemption limits under the Clause as it stands will depend on the circumstances of the individual taxpayers concerned. The greatest benefits will go to those with incomes equal to the new income limits, so a single man with an income of £325 who found it advantageous to claim marginal relief for 1962–63 had a tax bill of £11 5s. With the same income he will now become exempt for this year. Similarly, a married man with an income of £520 will be exempt from tax, when previously he paid £18.
12 m.
These are quite significant reliefs to those older people who are living on

small fixed incomes. Whether or not the extent of the relief is right must at the end of the day be a matter of judgment by hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Sowerby mentioned the age exemption in the speech which he made in the course of the Budget debate. He made much the same point on the Amendment this evening. I find it somewhat hard to accept the logic of his argument. I will quote one or two sentences from what he said during the debate on the Budget. This extract puts succinctly the point which he reiterated this evening:
The Chancellor has raised the limits for age exemption, but has reduced the actual tax saving by one-quarter. A single person, under the new exemption limit of £325, will get actually £2 13s. a year less in tax relief than he got previously, when the limit was £300. A married man, rising now to £520 exemption, will get £4 7s. a year less in actual tax relief than he got on the previous limit of £480."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1960; Vol. 675, c. 1118.]
A single person at the new exemption of £325, the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, would become exempt from tax. Similarly, a married man at the figure of £520, the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, would become exempt from tax. It is a little hard to see that the single person with the new exemption limit of £325 or the married man with the new exemption limit of £520 is doing too badly. After all, they are being exempted altogether from tax. One could hardly do more for them than that.
The hon. Gentleman's point as far as I can understand it, is that the income limits for age exemption should he raised so as to give the same tax benefit at the new limits, compared with tax on the normal basis, as was given at the 1962–63 income limits, compared with the "normal" tax for that year. I think I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, although I do not think he accepted it when he pointed it out, when individuals' tax liabilities are being reduced all round, as they are on this occasion, it is not unreasonable to find that the relative advantage given by a special exemption is not fully maintained.
I know that the hon. Gentleman went on this evening to try to compare the age exemption and the small income relief. There really is not any valid comparison


between the two, certainly not on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. After all, the comparison must involve starting from a hypothetical situation in which there is neither age exemption nor small income relief and then seeing what difference the proposed arrangements for age exemption and small income relief make as compared with the difference flowing from the existing arrangements. This is, if not a far-fetched exercise, at any rate one of somewhat dubious validity. What we should do in these cases, and what people are really concerned with, is to look at an individual's tax position as a whole. My right hon. Friend's proposals for increasing age exemption are pretty reasonable and will, as I have shown, be of great help to elderly people living on small incomes.
I can well understand the purpose of my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West, Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in seeking to persuade my right hon. Friend to insert still higher figures in the Finance Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friends will not mind if I make this point. Under the proposals as they now stand, a young married couple will begin to pay tax when their income exceeds £440 a year. I wonder whether an exemption for an elderly married couple up to £650 as proposed by my hon. Friend—£210 more than for a young married couple—would not be somewhat out of line. The age exemption which my hon. Friend proposes is a good bit above the starting point for a younger married couple, even with a child. Their starting point is £588 a year. Whatever the merits of my hon. Friend's proposal in isolation, I am sure that he would be the first to agree that one must get a certain relationship between the various allowances.
Of course, I recognise that the proposals which my hon. Friend has put forward, and to a lesser extent those put forward by the hon. Member for Sowerby, would be a great boon to the elderly people, but perhaps I should remind the Committee that the whole idea of age exemption, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth, was introduced by a Conservative Government in 1957. The hon. Member for Sowerby was so concerned to improve Anglo-American relations that I am sure he inadvertently omitted to give the Con-

servative Government the credit for introducing the allowance which he now seeks to improve. Not only was it introduced by a Conservative Government in 1957, but it was increased in 1958, and again it was increased only last year. Now there is this further increase this year proposed by my hon. Friend. I mention this history very shortly because it shows conclusively that we do not regard this relief as something which is static.
For the reasons which I have given, I hope the Committee, and my hon. Friend in particular, will not press these Amendments this year—a year in which, in any event, my right hon. Friend is proposing some increases.

Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? First, for what reason, other than midnight forgetfulness or political prejudice, does he think that the proposals of the Opposition in this case would be of less benefit to old folk than those of the Chancellor? Second, I see from the White Paper that the Chancellor's concessions will cost £1 million this year and £2 million in a full year. Could he tell us the corresponding figures for our proposals and for those of his hon. Friend?

Mr. Barber: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood what I was saying. I certainly intended to say that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West would be of greater benefit than those of the Opposition, because he wished to a go a little further than the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sowerby.
The cost of the Amendments moved on behalf of the Opposition would be £1¼ million in 1963–64 and £2½ million in a full year. So far as my hon. Friend's Amendments are concerned, they would cost £7 million this year and £11 million in a full year. I did not refer to the cost, for the obvious reason that this was not one of the main arguments which I thought it right to put before the Committee for asking hon. Members not to press these Amendments this year.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 13.—(CHILD RELIEF: AMENDMENTS AS TO CHILD'S INCOME.)

Mr. John Diamond: I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, to leave out from "effect" to "as".

The Deputy-Chairman: I suggest that with this Amendment we can discuss the following two Amendments, in page 11, line 37, at end insert:
and by the addition at the end of the proviso of the following words, that is to say—
'or which the child earns during the year of assessment in which the child leaves school'",
and in line 41, at end add:
(2) Subsection (9) of the last foregoing section shall apply in relation to this section as it applies in relation to that section.

Mr. Diamond: The first thing I want to do is to thank all those hon. Members opposite, none of whom, I am sure, was proposing to leave the Chamber, for being good enough to have stayed this length of time to give us their support on this group of Amendments, which are the kind of Amendments that they have supported in previous years. That was obviously the reason why they wished to stay in such adequate numbers, in even greater numbers than the Liberal Party at the moment seems to have produced, in support of these Amendments.
Before I can explain an Amendment to a Clause which has not been effectively discussed before, I am bound to say a word or two, obviously very shortly at this early hour of the morning, about the purpose of the Clause itself. The Clause is quite simply described in one sentence as a tapering Clause, the kind of Clause which has been pressed time and time again, a tapering Clause in relation to the income of the child which might or might not affect the allowance given to the parent who maintains that child.
This, as I say, is a Clause which we have moved time and time again from this side of the Committee, and, of course, we have been on excellent ground in moving it, because it was about nine years ago—no less—that the Royal Commission reported in favour of a tapering provision precisely of this kind. I suppose that I should congratulate the party opposite on the unusual speed with which it has got a provision of this kind into the Bill after such a short period as nine years since it was established to everybody's satisfaction that it should be done.
I am now able to turn to the Amendments. There are three Amendments which you, Sir Robert, have been good enough to suggest should be discussed together. The words of the first Amendment disguise the simple effect of it. The Amendment, quite simply, provides that instead of the benefit of this tapering Clause coming into effect next year, it shall come into effect this year. What is wrong with a simple suggestion of that kind, and is it not obvious that every hon. Member opposite, and probably some right hon. Members opposite, would wish to support us in such a simple Amendment'? There is a very good reason why this Amendment should be adopted, a very good reason for the sake of parents who, at the moment, are suffering the obvious inequity—the admitted inequity and something admitted to be inequitable by the Government in previous debates—of losing a complete child allowance because the child has an income of £1, or even £2, above the required maximum.
Is it not wrong that this inequity should continue any longer than necessary? I ask every father and mother opposite why they should not help us in this matter. I can produce, of course, some very good arguments in support of this Amendment in addition to what I have said already. The first argument in favour of it is that no argument against it has been put forward.
During the course of his Second Reading speech the Financial Secretary referred to some problem of administrative difficulty. I doubt whether the Financial Secretary fully understood the suggestion being made in his own Bill. There is no administrative difficulty added, as I hope to demonstrate, and I am not the only person who takes this view. The hon. Gentleman has no doubt received, as we all have received, the paper put out by the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants. Not belonging to that body, it is possible for me to pay a tribute to it and to say whan an excellent document it is, and also to refer to its first recommendation with regard to Clause 13.
It says:
The Council wishes to draw attention to the fact that in general the income of a child will not be known until the end of the fiscal year, so that in the great majority of cases the new child allowances will always have to


be allowed restrospectively. It recommends, therefore, that the Bill should be amended to give effect to this relief as from 1963–64.
I do not know whether I can go quite as far as is suggested here, but the point is made, and perhaps the Government have not been sufficiently aware of it, that there will not be much additional administrative inconvenience as a result of this tapering Clause, and there is, therefore, nothing like sufficient justification for postponing the benefit of it for a whole year.
12.15 a.m.
There is no reason why it should not be introduced at once. It is something which both sides of the Committee regard as well overdue. It was supported by the Royal Commission years ago, We have pressed it from this side several times. It is in the Finance Bill. My first point, therefore, is that we should adopt the first Amendment so as to give the benefit of this relief straight away.
If the Government are obstinate and they insist upon leaving it for next year, then I ask: why is the Clause in the Bill at all? Why is it suddenly thought, at this stage in our electoral fortunes, that it is right to introduce into an annual Finance Bill a provision which has no relevance whatever in its present form to the current year but which has relevance only to a future year? It is completely against the general pattern—though there are exceptions—which is to provide in each year's Finance Bill only for the alterations which will have effect in that year. Why bring it in a year ahead?
There have been other occasions when the Government have thought it right to give notice to the public of benefits which are to be introduced, if they remain in power, a year or two years ahead. This is not the way to fulfil the responsibilities of the Treasury in the Finance Bill. It should either be an annual Bill or become something entirely different, a five-year Budget or something like that. If we have to have annual Finance Bills, they should deal with variations in the law having effect for each year. It would, therefore, he sensible to adopt the first Amendment and let it be a provision which has effect when the Bill comes into operation.
If the Government will not do that, they should withdraw the whole Clause or give us an absolutley satisfactory ex-

planation of why at this particular awkward electoral time, they propose to give advance information of the way in which their minds are turning on the subject of Income Tax allowances and reliefs.
The second Amendment, unlike many others, has the merit that, happily, it combines justice with administrative convenience. Usually, we face the problem that what we should like to do for administrative convenience does not coincide with justice; but in this case it does. This proposal has been pressed from this side before, the last occasion being only last year, I think.
The Amendment would do away with the awkward situation which arises in the one year in which a child allowance ceases because the child is no longer dependent but, as it were, stands on its own feet, that is, the child leaves school or other educational establishment and starts to earn, and, during the year in which it is earning, earns a small amount. One cannot say precisely how much the child will earn.
I use the word "earn" because, as the Committee will have noted, this Amendment refers to earned income. It does not refer to investment income. Investment income is likely to be fairly stable and well known a year in advance. It is likely, therefore, to cause no administrative problem. What causes the problem is the uncertainty of the amount which the child is likely to earn in its first year after leaving its educational establishment.
The amount of administrative difficulty involved in the present circumstances must be considerable. Either the allowance is immediately withdrawn from the parent by the Inland Revenue at the start of the year, generally in a P.A.Y.E. coding, causing anxiety, annoyance and irritation to the taxpayer, which nobody wants because, as far as possible, one desires the machine to run smoothly, the allowance being withdrawn at the start of the year in the belief by the Inland Revenue that during the period the child will earn a certain amount; or the allowance is left and, therefore, if the child earns too much, there is the slight problem of having to make adjustment at the end of the year for the further amount which has to be paid and which is generally added on to future years.
It could be simply avoided by ignoring, in the first year of assessment, what the child earns. This is not a new departure. It is not a move away from tax purity, nor it is one that is not supported by the merits of the argument. As everybody knows, in the first year in which a child is affected in this way, the parent is put to quiet unusual and non-recurrent expenditure by way of different clothes and a number of items. It is reasonable, therefore, that the parent should not be prejudiced as to the child allowance, in this first year only, having regard to the fact that the parent is being put to unusual and non-recurrent expenditure. It is, therefore, both right and administratively extremely convenient if one could forget for this one year only such small income as the child earns during its first year.
I repeat, this is not a novel departure. On many occasions, in many aspects of our taxation system, the Inland Revenue deals with rough justice with regard to opening and closing years either of the life of an individual or of a variety of personal allowances or businesses, and so on. There is always the problem of how to treat a person who did not exist at the beginning of the financial year but does exist at the end of the year, or vice versa. By and large, the Revenue deals with the matter, if at all other than completely equitably, slightly generously. Therefore, this would not be departing from that tradition in any sense that there should be, if it is thought to be at all generous, a slight touch of generosity in the attitude of the Inland Revenue in regard to just this one year by ignoring the income of the child for the purpose of granting the child allowance.
If this method were to be adopted, as I very much hope it will be, there could be no argument against adopting the first of the three Amendments and bringing in immediately the benefit which, I am sure, the Chancellor wants to bring in this year; because if one does not have the problem of recalculating the child allowance, because the income is to be ignored in the first year, we would do away with any possible argument, in particular the argument advanced by the Financial Secretary on Second Reading, that the Clause could not be brought in immediately because of the administrative dfficulties.
The third Amendment needs the minimum of explanation, even to those hon. Members who still remain awake at this late hour. It is a repetition of what happens in an earlier Clause in the Government's Bill and is merely to provide for the fact that provisional collection under P.A.Y.E. will not be effective; there will be an adjustment in due course, and this is quite normal in our pay-as-you-earn arrangements. So I feel that that is simply dealt with as a consequential Amendment.
As I have said, here are three Amendments which hang nicely together and which have the effect of bringing into existence the wishes of the Government and, I am sure, of its supporters immediately instead of next year. They make the whole matter simple and just, and are typical of the kind of Amendments which the Opposition move.

Mr. Barber: These three Amendments challenge the whole basis of Clause 13, both the principle involved in the Clause and also the timing of its operation. I do not think that I need go over again the way in which the Clause is intended to work, because it was made clear by my right hon. Friend in his Budget speech and I touched upon it during the Second Reading debate, and I think that most hon. Members understand it.
It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said, that proposals that the child allowance should be tapered on these lines or similar lines have been made on a number of occasions in the past. There is, however, a considerable difficulty, one with which my right hon. Friend was faced on this occasion and one which is very relevant to the first Amendment. It arises because P.A.Y.E. works smoothly only when the code number given to an employee before the beginning of the tax year to which it applies accurately reflects the allowances to which he is entitled for the year.
With a tapered child allowance, depending on the amount by which the child income exceeds the prescribed limit, it will be necessary for the tax office to estimate in advance what the excess income will be, and in many cases where the estimate turns out to be incorrect, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, an assessment will have to be made on the child's parent after the end of the year,


with further work in repaying any tax overpaid or in recovering any tax underpaid on the basis of the original coding.
Earlier examinations of the problem, as pointed out in similar discussions in past years, led us to the conclusion that the extra work would require the equivalent of an additional 450 staff, and the view was taken in past years that an administrative cost of this order would not be justified. The matter was discussed at considerable length during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill last year, and it was agreed that we should look at the matter once again.
Now the whole matter has been reexamined, and the Inland Revenue has reached the conclusion that provided—this is most important—that necessary preparatory work can be done before the Income Tax year in which the new arrangements come into force, the extra staff required would amount to about 275 compared with the 450 which would otherwise be required. Even this cost in terms of staff is appreciable, but my right hon. Friend has decided that it is one which ought to be borne in view of the strength of the case in principle for some form of tapering arrangement.
The earlier estimate of the extra staff requirement of approximately 450 related to the work burden which would arise if tax officers had to depend on the existing arrangements for obtaining information from taxpayers. This number of extra staff would still be required to implement the proposal for the current year, 1963–64, as the hon. Gentleman suggested in connection with the first Amendment. We propose for future years to ease the work by introducing special arrangements for obtaining the necessary information from taxpayers. I do not think that I need trouble the Committee with details now.
But I should say, with respect to the hon. Member for Gloucester, and to the memorandum of the Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants, which I read today, that they are quite wrong in thinking there is no reason why we should delay the introduction of these tapering provisions until next year. I can assure them that the Chancellor, if he could possibly and reasonably have introduced these provisions to be effective for this tax year, would have done so. The easing of the work in the

administration of the tapering provisions could not be secured if we introduced the scheme for this year, because the arrangements turn both on the preparation of the necessary forms and their issue to the taxpayers concerned.
12.30 a.m.
There was a further reason against bringing them into force in the current year which is quite conclusive, and I am sure that this will appeal to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) with his knowledge of these matters. The work of the P.A.Y.E. recoding to give effect to this year's changes in the personal allowances and reliefs and the abolition of Schedule A will throw an exceptionally heavy burden on the tax officers this spring and throughout the summer.
In these circumstances, it would have been a little hard to add to that considerable burden by giving effect to a scheme for tapered child allowances. The Chancellor has raised from £100 to £115 a year the income limit up to which a child ranks far the allowance. The hon. Member for Gloucester seemed to think there was something improper in including this in the Bill because the scheme is not to be operative for this financial year.
We have introduced it so that the rules will be on the Statute Book and the Inland Revenue can get ahead with the preparatory work it will have to begin in the autumn for fixing P.A.Y.E. codes for the following year, 1964–65. If it were not on the Statute Book, or there were danger that it might be reversed by a subsequent Government, the advantage of the work of the Inland Revenue in this regard would be nugatory.
The hon. Member may not have appreciated this aspect earlier because we have not had time to deploy our arguments. I hope that he will agree that, because of the difficulties inherent in the scheme—which can, to some extent, be overcome by deferring its operation—and the other burdens on the Inland Revenue, it is reasonable to defer it for a year.
The hon. Member spoke of an alternative scheme to the tapering one proposed by the Chancellor. The second Amendment proposes that a child's earnings during the income tax year in which he leaves school should be ignored in


testing whether his income exceeds the statutory limit above which a claim to child allowance is inadmissible.

Mr. Mitchison: It is not an alternative, but an addition.

Mr. Barber: Whether it is an alternative or an addition is not really relevant to my argument.
In my view, this would really not he a sensible and fair scheme to adopt. It would surely not really be possible to justify treating the earnings of a child in the year in which he leaves school differently for the purpose of the income tax limit from income earned in another year—for instance, when he leaves university or works for a year after school before going on to university.
There are a number of other reasons which I will give if hon. Members want me to go into detail, but which indicate that that scheme which the hon. Member for Gloucester has proposed would not work out very fairly and would involve a considerable number of anomalies. I appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that he would prefer to have this scheme this year and perhaps a tapering scheme next year, or perhaps the two working together, but I cannot see that in any circumstances it would be right to have the scheme advocated by the hon. Member for Gloucester.
I hope that the Committee will accept that the scheme put forward by my right hon. Friend is the fairer and, for the reasons which I have given, that it is reasonable to defer operation for one year. If the Committee accepts this argument. I hope that it will reject the Amendments or, as I hope at this hour of the morning, that hon. Members will not press them.

Mr. William Clark: May I press my hon. Friend on this matter of the extra staff required by the Inland Revenue in order to have tapering conditions for child allowance allowances? He said that 450 extra staff would be required if the scheme were introduced this year, but that it would take only 270 if it were introduced at the end of the fiscal year. When the annual returns come out, the annual income of the child for this year will have to be studied and it is not a matter

of determining the child's income for next year. Consequently, the Inland Revenue will be in the same dilemma next year and will want as many extra staff next April as this April.
Will my hon. Friend look into the administrative side of this matter, which seems to be the only point at issue? The allowance is for the year of assessment rather than for the preceding year and I am sure that the same dilemma will arise. I agree that there would be an administrative saving if it were the previous year, but as it is the year of assessment of the annual income of the child, I doubt whether the administrative cost to the Inland Revenue would be 270 or 450 extra staff, whichever it may be.
I do not wish to detain the Committee at this late hour, but I should like my hon. Friend to look at this matter again to see whether administrative difficulty is really holding us up for one year or whether it would be possible to say that it will be given for 1963–64, but will not become effective until April, 1964, when there will be a return of tax overpaid, or a readjustment of the code number for 1964–65.

Mr. Barber: Bearing in mind the wish of my right hon. Friend that this scheme should be operative this year, we obviously looked at that aspect with the greatest possible care. Perhaps in a rather shorthand fashion, I said in answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester that a certain amount of preparatory work was being done and that we were introducing special arrangements for obtaining the necessary information, and so on. I have the full details of the arrangements and, if it is not offensive to other hon. Members, in due course I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) and to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) explaining in a little more detail what we propose to do by way of these forms and so on to which I referred only in passing. I think that they will be convinced that what I have said is a fair indication of how it will work out in practice.

Mr. Diamond: We are in the difficulty that both sides of the Committee obviously want to help the Government.


The hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor was anxious that this reform should have effect this current year and we are trying to help him to give effect to it in this current year. I readily accept what the Financial Secretary has said and I am sure that the details which he is to send to me will be most helpful and, in any event, most courteous.
Without wishing to return discourtesy for courtesy, I should be more happy about leaving the matter exactly as it stands were I not satisfied that the Financial Secretary has not fully understood what we have been trying to tell him, because he kept referring to the fact that the second Amendment was in some sense an alternative to the first. It is not, in the slightest degree. What it does is to meet precisely his argument about administrative convenience on the first Amendment.
If the second Amendment were accepted there would be hardly any need for additional staff for extra reviewing at the end of the year of the tapering allowance and therefore there would be no argument left—which, at the moment, is the difference between 450 people and 270 people, or whatever the figures may be.
At the moment, the hon. Member is saying that if we postpone this for one year, instead of needing 450 additional staff we shall need only 270, and that, therefore, there will be a saving. He has obviously not paid adequate attention to the second Amendment, which would reduce the necessity almost completely for any additional staff. I want to underline what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) said, that in any event this is a tapering allowance. It is no longer a fixed sum, but a tapering allowance, pound for pound, and to the extent that there is a twenty shillings variation in a child's income there will be a recalculation of the child's allowance. We all recognise that this is one of the problems associated with it. But now it is in the Finance Bill. This means that every child who has an income in this neighbourhood will have to have its income calculated, and the parents' child allowance will no longer be a fixed figure but a varying one, depending on this marginal relief.
It is different from a fixed allowance, where it is possible to say well ahead

whether or not there is a child allowance. I have not seen the details which the hon. Member has promised to send me, and I must not dismiss them, but I am left with the feeling that his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South has clearly expressed, that the Government are putting too much stress on the argument of administrative difficulty. There will be a certain increased administrative difficulty, but this will be inevitable, and it will be due to the Clause and not to its being brought in next year.
I am surprised that the hon. Member thinks it necessary to have this kind of provision in the Finance Bill, merely to let the Revenue make a preparatory collection of information in the autumn of the given year. The Government will know what they want it for, and I dare say that the Revenue often take steps to collect information on the production of which the Government may decide, at Budget time, to make alterations in the Finance Act for the subsequent year.
We are left with the feeling that this matter is best expressed as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, has expressed it—that the Government should consider this matter again. There is no difference in principle. We all accept the tapering principle, and we all accept the Clause. We all want it to come into effect as soon as possible—including the Chancellor—and we all want to go home as soon as possible—including the Chancellor. I leave the matter with the hon. Member, suggesting that he should consider it again. I do not propose to withdraw the Amendment, nor do I propose to press it unduly. There is nothing like a sufficient number of hon. Members opposite to stand a Division. Their lack of numbers would be obvious in any Division we call. But we shall not withdraw the Amendment, because we have made a good point, and we feel that the matter should be considered more carefully.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Michael Shaw: I am interested in the argument of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). But 11 cannot convince myself that the amount of work involved is affected by the terms of the second Amendment. Already, the Inland Revenue works on an assumption with regard to the amount which a child


may earn during the year in which the child leaves school. That assumption may not be correct and an alteration may have to be made. But the Inland Revenue could continue to work on that assumption and no additional work would be involved.
I may be wrong, but I think that some additional work would be involved in relation to unearned income and in collating information already in the possession of the Inland Revenue. Somewhere in the records of the Inland Revenue there must be information relating to these children and it would only be a question of getting the information and relating it to whether or not an allowance was permitted to the parent. Therefore, the argument of my hon. Friend seems to be relevant and the course he proposes would seem to be the only practical one to adopt.

Mr. Mitchison: We shall find the information which the Financial Secretary is to provide very interesting. It seems to hon. Members on this side of the Committee that the information is material. We should be glad if it could be furnished in answer to a Question, or, at any rate, if a number of copies could be provided. Because we should like to consider the matter again, my hon. Friend would be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I might add, though it is implied in what I said, that we must consider the matter again at a later stage after considering the information.

Mr. Barber: I know that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will accept from me that my right hon. Friend wished to have this new system operating this year. I must impress upon him that it was only after the most thorough examination of the administrative action involved that he decided to defer its operation for a year. If the information which I said I would produce for the hon. Members who are particularly interested has a wider interest, and as it would be inconvenient to circulate many copies and not sensible to give it in answer to a Question, I will quickly tell the hon. and learned Member now what is the information. I would not take a moment.

Mr. Mitchison: I have an alternative suggestion. We should like to consider

the matter and look at what has been said during the debate, if this sort of consideration has occurred to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend more than it has occurred to us. We will not press the hon. Gentleman for a number of copies of the information. We will get them done in the copying machine.

Mr. Diamond: In view of what has been said, and as I believe that the information will be forthcoming and will be most helpful, and in view, also, of the fact that it is the practice in the House—without wishing to give any indication of what will happen in future—to look more kindly on a matter which has not been pressed to a Division in Committee and that it is only due to the right hon. Gentleman that the information should be considered carefully, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Commitee report Progress; to sit again this day.

H.M. SHIPS (SURFACE MISSILES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rees.]

12.51 a.m.

Commander Anthony Courtney: Even at this late hour it is a great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new capacity as Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I say this on behalf of many hon. Friends and myself. We wish him well in the very arduous duties that he has taken on and will give him every assistance in our power to produce the best answer for the Royal Navy, which, after all, is the object of us all.
It is in that spirit that I wish to raise a matter tonight relating to a serious gap which I believe exists in the post-war weapon policy of the Royal Navy which has been shown up particularly by recent developments abroad and which in its


broadest sense can be described as a lack of development of surface-to-surface guided missiles in H.M. ships. On a small point of order. I suggest that the wording of the title of this Adjournment debate appearing on the Order Paper is incorrect. It should be "in", not "on" Her Majesty's ships.
We are invariably in a difficulty on these occasions in expressing technicalities and going into questions of weapon development which might well be confidential. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me if I refer to the well known reference book, "Jane's Fighting Ships"—in which, I assure the House, I have no personal interest—which is looked upon very highly by the navies of the major nations. I believe that the Royal Navy's post-war weapon policy has been dictated by several requirements based, unfortunately for the Navy and the nation, on the need for economy. We have cut in our ships, we have cut in our research and development, and from time to time cut in our dockyards and cut in our manpower.
As is the case after many major wars, the importance of sea power to this island nation has been virtually forgotten. At the same time, certain aspects of weapon development have gone well. We still hold first place among the navies of the world in anti-submarine techniques. I am sure that by comparison with our American friends our operation of large fleet aircraft carriers is second to none. In the "Oberon" class submarine we have perhaps the best type of conventional submarine in the world.
In guided missiles, however, the tale is not quite so happy. We have, it is true, specialised in surface-to-air guided missiles for the protection of the Fleet. We have the long-range Seaslug, now—it is understood—going in for a Mark II, and the short-range Seacat, both of which have been complained about and criticised to a certain extent, primarily on delays in their development, but which do, I believe, represent a very credible deterrent to aircraft attack on the Fleet or on task forces operating offshore in an amphibious capacity.
I am sure that there are two basic reasons why this weapon policy postwar has been allowed to fall into this pit. Setting aside economy for a moment,

the Russian surface potential, with which we have felt it might be necessary to deal, has consisted primarily of the "Sverdlov" class of missile with a broadside of 12 6 in. guns based, as the House probably knows, on the "Mauritius" and "Kenya" class of British cruisers, which impressed the Russians so much when they were on board these ships in the later stages of the war.
The second factor which has influenced weapon development and development policy has, in my view, been the fact that we have retained since the end of the war fleet aircraft carriers operating fixed-wing aircraft which were considered by the naval staff to make up for the conscious lack of a developing surface-to-surface guided missile which could match the surface-to-air missiles which we had under development. We have our fixed-wing aircraft for reconnaissance duties. We have them for strike duties with the Anglo-American strike fleet in northern waters. We have them, and must continue to have them, in my opinion, for amphibious operations off-shore where high performance aircraft will inevitably be required in face of armed opposition to amphibious landings. Finally, as a third major role, we have the fixed-wing aircraft for the longe-range air defence of our task forces and of convoys, where necessary, proceeding along the sea routes.
In a sense, one can say that, post-war, our surface-to-surface fighting capability has been split. It is as though the old main and secondary armaments which were incorporated in the battleships, the capital ships of up to a few years ago, have been split into classes of ship—the smaller ships with 4·5 in. or 6 in. guns and a surface-to-air guided missile defensive capability, but with no really capable, efficient surface-to-surface weapon, and the aircraft carrier carrying the fixed-wing aircraft which acted in the main armament role for the Fleet.
An example of the effects of what I consider to be a most misguided train of thought by the naval staff and by the Admiralty as a whole has been the present generation of guided missile destroyers, so-called—the "Devonshire" class. They are fine ships, it is true—modern; fast, 32½ knots, I believe, with admirable armaments of surface-to-air guided missiles—Seastug and Seacat—to


defend task forces, convoys, or whatever it may be, against attacks by enemy aircraft. They are wholly admirable.
But "guided missile destroyers" is surely a contradiction in terms. They are not destroyers. They are not really, in the true sense, guided missile ships because they lack a surface-to-surface capability which is provided in these fine ships only by 4·5 inch guns, perhaps with a range of 20,000 to 24,000 yards. I believe that a new situation has developed in recent years which makes this thinking, which was already out of date, extremely dangerous in the light of present circumstances.
I would quote three new factors in the world strategic situation, seen primarily from a maritime point of view. In the first place, our potential enemies, the Russians, have developed a powerful class of true guided-missile destroyer—very fast, probably with a limited endurance, undoubtedly at some disadvantage in sea-keeping qualities, and with a lack of accommodation for ships' companies, but with immense hitting power and great manoeuvrability, the hitting power being in a new development of a surface-to-surface guided missile which, I understand, has great accuracy, with visibility ranges of upwards of 30,000 yards, and which, while perhaps not having a very great rate of fire, has a considerable accuracy and carries a weight of projectile, which, as an alternative, can be nuclearised, and which is very much greater than any of the orthodox guns still in service in the Royal Navy.
We have, furthermore, a similar type of surface-to-surface guided missile fitted in small 100-ton or 160-ton motor gun boats of a typical Russian fast short-range class—about 40 knots, perhaps—and mounting, in the larger case of 160 tons, four of these surface-to-surface guided missiles with tremendous strike capacity. It is a sobering thought that even in this smallest class of gun boat the surface-to-surface capability of weapons out-ranges any guns now in service in the Royal Navy.
There is another factor to which I would like to draw attention. It lies in the change-over of the Western naval strategy from the concept of the strike fleet of aircraft carriers with a nuclear

capacity to a scattered force of second-strike Polaris-type submarines and the impending withdrawal of the strike force. That has released a large force of Soviet surface vessels of the types which I described which can now be employed in other areas.
I should like here to mention the fact that although the Russians suffer from a grave disadvantage in the separation of their four main fleets, they are able to reinforce their Pacific fleet from the Arctic fleet which contains this mass of surface vessels via the northern sea route round the north of Siberia, which is navigable by the use of ice-breakers for about six weeks at the end of every summer. I believe that we may see a striking reinforcement of the Soviet Pacific fleet in the late summer of 1963, for the reasons which I have given.
The third and immediate factor which is upon us is the prospect of the use of naval power by the Russians in the Far East, perhaps in support of Indonesian action against greater Malaysia, whose support we have guaranteed from 1st August this year. We cannot but be mindful of Mr. Khrushchev's reference to Soviet forces engaging in "just colonial wars." We know of the close interest which the Soviet military authorities take in Indonesian affairs, of the large number of ships which are manned, perhaps by Indonesians, perhaps by Russians, perhaps by mixed Russian and Indonesian crews.
We do not rightly know, but the experience of some of us in the Spanish Civil War shows that, in practice, when the shooting starts it does not really matter very much what proportion of Spaniards, Italians, Germans or Russians is actually laying the mines or firing the torpedoes which sink our ships.
We have, finally, the Russian need to remedy the loss of face, if I may use an Oriental expression, caused to the Soviet navy by the confrontation by the Americans over Cuba in which it was subjected to a major maritime defeat.
We need urgent action to remedy these shortcomings, and I ask this evening for two assurances from the Government, if they can be given by the Civil Lord. The first is that the Admiralty should initiate urgent steps to develop an efficient type—or to acquire from abroad,


perhaps from the French, perhaps from the Americans—of surface-to-surface guided missile to fill the gap which is existing in the extent to which other nations have gone ahead of us in this respect, The second is for the Government to give an assurance that they will not only retain the force of fleet aircraft carriers, of which we have four in operation at the moment with fixed-wing aircraft, but will take early steps to build and to initiate a replacement programme.
The Royal Navy is desperately short of weapons. There is a serious gap, I believe, in our surface-to-surface defensive power. We cannot remain in an inferior weapons position today, risking serious disaster, particularly in the Far East. It is perhaps 150 years since Lord Nelson said, "Close with a Frenchman or a Spaniard, but outmanœuvre a Russian." It is no good dealing at sea with a Russian unless one has weapons comparable to his own. I ask the Government to look at this question with urgency.

1.8 a.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay): I should, of course, begin the remarks that I have to offer to the House on this somewhat technical subject by expressing my appreciation of the kind, good wishes with which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Commander Courtney) began his speech.
You will no doubt have noticed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that during the course of the last few years I have been obliged to come to this Box on quite a large number of occasions to answer Adjournment debates. Some of my hon. Friends thought that my translation to this new position would mean a temporary respite from this duty. The fact is that I have acquired two Adjournment debates after only three days in office, which shows that it was a completely wrong conception. However, I hope that all those hon. Members who wish to raise subjects on the Adjournment, to which I shall have to reply, will do so with the same moderation and cogency that my hon. and gallant Friend has shown tonight.
I realise that the task of acting as spokesman for that great Service, the Royal Navy, in this House presents difficulties to someone who has not been

actively engaged in Service matters for a good many years. But I shall do my best. I can at least promise my hon. and gallant Friend that I shall study "Jane's Fighting Ships" with even greater interest. One of the few perquisites which have fallen to me is that I can actually have a copy of this valuable volume of my own—something which I have always wanted ever since I was a small boy.
There is a threat, on paper at least, from Russian missile firing ships to our own naval forces. It is quite natural for my hon. and gallant Friend to ask, as others have asked, why we in Britain have not developed a similar surface-to-surface missile system, since our possible adversaries already have one. In trying to answer this question, I shall, first, remind the House of the entirely different strategic position which the Soviet Navy has compared with the Royal Navy, or, indeed, the United States Navy, which also is in question here. There is no surface-to-surface guided weapon system in N.A.T.O. of characteristics similar to those in use, we believe, by the Soviet Union.
The Royal Navy has world-wide commitments, and these commitments require us to have an ability to operate our ships at a very great distance from their main bases or, indeed, from friendly territory. In addition, these commitments call for an ability to undertake a very wide variety of individual tasks. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned only some of them. There is the defence of the sea lanes against submarines, against surface attack, against air attack. There is the support of our forces, either landing or actually operating ashore. There is attack upon enemy bases and enemy shore installations. Last, but not least, there is the great traditional rôle of the Navy, the destruction of enemy surface naval forces. With such a wide variety of tasks, it is, obviously, necessary that we have the most flexible weapons system possible.
The Soviet Navy is in a very different position, although it seems that the Russians are acquiring certain different types of commitment which do not permit them the same freedom in using their internal lines of communication, as they have done hitherto. Basically, the rôle of the Russian Navy is conceived as one not for the protection of shipping, but


for its destruction and for the defence of Russia's own coasts. In comparison with the task falling upon the Royal Navy, this is a highly specialised business and one for which highly specialised weapons systems are very much better suited.
Having mentioned the general strategic position, I turn now to the effect that it has on the requirement for a surface-to-surface missile system. The Royal Navy requires fixed-wing aircraft to carry out its rôle in a number of different ways. There are several different tasks which are put upon the Navy's shoulders. There is reconnaissance, because, in the present state of the art, only the manned aircraft can search out and identify the target. There is surveillance by airborne early warning systems.
There is long range air defence of task forces beyond the reach of surface-to-air guided weapons. There is the strike at the coastal target in support of amphibious landings. There is the strike on the land target in close tactical support of troops. Then there is the strike on the inland target. I have not mentioned the requirement to attack enemy surface ships, which is, practically speaking, the only rôle which could also be undertaken by a surface-to-surface guided missile system.
Although it is conceivable that a surface-to-surface guided weapon may match the abilities of strike aircraft in this single limited rôle in some respects, it does not come up to the strike aircraft in every way. In particular, aircraft have a much greater maximum range and, within that maximum range, are infinitely flexible in the operations which they can carry out.
What is, perhaps, even more important than range is that strike aircraft have the ability to locate and identify targets before they actually commit themselves to an attack. This problem is important in the operation of a surface-to-surface guided weapon system and it is most easily solved by the use of manned aircraft to obtain the necessary data about the target and to ensure that the right target is selected and that it is in the right position for a missile attack.
When, as the Russian Navy does, one operates close to one's own coast, co-

operation from shore-based aircraft is an adequate way of achieving the objective. For a navy such as our own, however, which has to operate over all the oceans of the world, often at long distances from bases or friendly territory, it is obviously impossible to rely on shore-based aircraft. Therefore, even for the operation of such a system, the presence of some kind or form of aircraft carrier is needed.
As I have explained, however, the surface-to-surface guided weapon, if we had it, would be undertaking only one of the many rôles which carrier-borne strike aircraft can carry out. Such a weapon could not operate at any great distance from the target without carrier support. Thus, as the situation stands, the surface-to-surface guided weapon would, to a great degree, be duplicating the function of the strike aircraft, which, for the reasons I have explained, is already a necessary part of the fleet.
As my hon. and gallant Friend is, no doubt, all too well aware—indeed, he was kind enough to commiserate with us upon the fact that we have to economise and do not have all the money that many of us would like—the resources available for the Navy are limited. It therefore follows that the justification for any major development or any major new construction programme has to be carefully examined.
To produce two systems to carry out the identical purpose would be very wasteful of our resources. Therefore, we have had to choose what we conceive to be the most flexible system, namely, the strike aircraft, and make it as good as we possibly can. We have not been able to justify the development of the more specialised surface-to-surface guided weapon as well as the strike aircraft. That does not mean that we would not like to have a surface-to-surface guided weapon system. It means simply that given our existing surface strike capacity, other things are more important.
My hon. and gallant Friend asked for two assurances. He asked, first, that the Admiralty should develop or acquire a surface-to-surface guided missile at once or as quickly as possible. He can rest assured that we will certainly keep abreast of the surface-to-surface guided weapon concept and the techniques which are developing in respect of it and also of


any developments which may occur and which might require some modification of our position. So far, we have no cause to doubt that the course we have chosen is the right one.
My hon. and gallant Friend asked for a second assurance that we would retain fleet aircraft carriers and, indeed, add to them by way of replacement as soon as we can. I can only tell him that this matter is very much in our minds and that I cannot tonight forecast exactly what will happen. I cannot give the assurance in precisely the form that my hon. and gallant Friend would like, but I can tell him that already, in my two or three days in this post, this problem has been brought forcibly to my notice, and I can assure him and the House that I will give it a great deal of attention in the months that lie ahead.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: We are grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow. East (Commander Courtney) for raising this matter, and I join which him in offering good wishes to the Civil Lord in his new post. Can the Civil Lord say when the Government are likely to be able to make a decision on aircraft carrier replacements?

Mr. Hay: As I have said, I have been in this office only a few days and I cannot answer that question "off the cuff". No doubt, if he wishes to pursue the matter, the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question. We are trying to announce a decision on the matter as soon as we can, because we are aware of the need.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past One o'clock.